The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20211150.tiffThornton Water Project Weld County Use by Special Review for Pipeline — Domestic Water Second Supplemental Permit Application — Appendixes Volume 2 of 4 Thornton WATER PROJECT Submitted to: Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dated: February 11, 2021 Prepared By: CH2M HILL 9191 South Jamaica Street 11111 CH2MHILL Englewood, CO 80112 City of Thornton Prepared For: City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Thornton Water Project — Weld County USR Second Supplemental Permit Application Table of Contents Thornton Water Project Weld County Use by Special Review for Pipeline - Domestic Water Second Supplemental Permit Application, Volume 1 of 4 Cover Letter Cover Table of Contents ii Acronyms and Abbreviations xi Introduction I-1 Purpose and Need P-1 USR Procedural Guide Checklist USR Procedural Guide Checklist PG -1 Section 1 Application Form 1-1 Section 2 Authorization Form, If Applicable 2-1 Section 3 Incorporation or Trust Document 3-1 Section 4 USR Questionnaire 4-1 Section 5 List of Property Owners 5-1 Section 6 Irrigation Ditch, Lateral, or Pipeline Owners 6-1 Section 7 Mineral Owners Agreement, If Applicable 7-1 Section 8 Recent Deed 8-1 Section 9 Certificate of Conveyances Form 9-1 Section 10 Statement of Taxes 10-1 Section 11 USR Map 11-1 Section 12 Notice of Inquiry, If Applicable 12-1 Section 13 Pre -application Meeting Minutes 13-1 Section 14 Evidence of Adequate Water Supply 14-1 Section 1 Evidence of Adequate Sewage Disposal 15-1 Section 16 Drainage 16-1 *Drainage Narrative Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline Exceptions to Stormwater Detention WP -1 *Preliminary Drainage Report Thornton Water Project Pump Station 1 Site P51-1 *Preliminary Drainage Report Thornton Water Project Pump Station 2 Site PS2-1 Section 17 Traffic Narrative 17-1 Section 18 Sign Plan, If Applicable 18-1 Section 19 Nuisance Abatement Plan, If Applicable 19-1 Section 20 Landscape and Screening Plan, If Applicable 20-1 Section 21 Decommissioning Plan, If Applicable 21-1 Section 22 Draft Emergency Incident Action Plan, If Applicable 22-1 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS *DRAFT Thornton Water Project Emergency Incident Action Plan For Weld County 1 Section 23 Noise Study, If Applicable 23-1 *Wave Engineering Noise Study 23-2 Section 24 Soils Report 24-1 Section 25 Community Meeting (Optional) 25-1 Section 26 Application Fee 26-1 Section 27 Investigation Fee 27-1 Procedural Guide 2021 Procedural Guide 2021 PG2021-1 Planning Requirement Checklist PG2021-1 Public Works Requirement Checklist PG2021-3 Environmental Health Requirement Checklist PG2021-3 Planning Questionnaire PG2021-4 Public Works Questionnaire PG2021-6 Environmental Health Questionnaire PG2021-8 WCC Section 23-2-510 Section A Applicant's Name and Telephone Number A-1 Section B Address of the Applicant B-1 Section C Summary Statement of the Project C-1 C.1 Source, capacity, size destination and type of facilities, support STRUCTURES, lines, etc., involvedC-1 C.2 A detailed report shall be submitted which includes information on the following Items. C-1 C.2.a A description of the PIPELINE — DOMESTIC WATER C-1 C.2.b A description of the preferred route or location of the PIPELINE — DOMESTIC WATER and reasons for its selection C-9 C.2.c Procedures to be employed in mitigating any adverse impacts of the proposed routes or sites. C-16 C.2.d An outline of the planned construction, including startup and commissioning schedule, to include the number of stages and timing of eachC-27 C.2.e Information of any public meeting conducted, to include the location, date, time, attendance and method of advertising. C-36 C.2.f A description of the hazards, if any, of fire, explosion and other dangers to the health, safety and welfare of employees and the general PUBLIC. C-38 C.2.g A description of emergency procedures to be followed in case of a reported failure or accident involving the proposed PIPELINE — DOMESTIC WATER. Such outline shall include actions, if any, required of PUBLIC officials, including fire and police officials, and the names and telephone numbers of appropriate Company officials to notify in an accident or failure should occurC-41 C.2.h A description of the method or procedures to be employed to avoid or minimize the impacts on irrigated agricultural land C-42 C.2.i A discussion of how the proposal conforms with the guidelines of Chapter 22 of this code and any other applicable code provision or ordinance in effect C-43 C.2.j A Decommissioning Plan C-85 C.2.k A traffic narrative describing construction traffic and permanent or temporary access points. C-85 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section D Section E C.2.I A description of any haul routes to be used during construction, identifying roads and bridges involved and the weight of the loadsC-86 C.2.m Soils Reports Required for Pipeline Crossings or Any Pipeline Encroaching in Public Right -of - Way, if Required by the Department of Public Works C-89 A Certified List of Names, Addresses and the Corresponding Parcel Identification Numbers Assigned by the County Assessor of Owner of Surface Properties Located Within One Hundred Fifty (150) Feet of the Pipeline — Domestic Water D-1 The Names and Addresses of Any Owner, Operator, or User of Any Irrigation Ditch, Lateral, or Pipeline that Traverses the Property E-1 Section F The Application Fee F-1 WCC Sections 23-2-480 and 23-2-490 Section G WCC Approval Standards and Application Requirements G-1 WCC Approval Standard G-1 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.1 and WCC 23-2-490 A All reasonable efforts have been made to avoid irrigated cropland or to minimize the negative impacts on agricultural USES and lands G-1 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.2 and 23-2-490 B The PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATER will not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area, as set forth in applicable MASTER PLANS G-2 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.3 and 23-2-490 C The design of the proposed PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATER mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible G-10 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.4 and 23-2-490 D The site shall be maintained in such a manner so as to control soil erosion, dust and the growth of NOXIOUS WEEDS. G-12 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.5 and 23-2-490 E The applicant has agreed to implement any reasonable measures deemed necessary by the Board of County Commissioners to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the COUNTY will be protected, and to mitigate or minimize any potential adverse impacts from the proposed PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATER. G-14 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.6 and 23-2-490 F All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of the COUNTY and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area G-19 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.7 and 23-2-490 G The nature and location or expansion of the PIPELINE — DOMESTIC WATER will not unreasonably interfere with any significant wildlife habitat and will not unreasonably affect any endangered wildlife species, unique natural resource, known historic landmark or archaeological site within the affected area G-25 WCC Sections 23-2-480 A.8 and 23-2-490 H No adverse impact from stormwater runoff to the PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY and/or surrounding properties as a result of the PIPELINE - DOMESTIC WATERG-26 WCC Application Requirements G-27 Approval Standards and Requirements Cross -Reference G-28 References R-1 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS iv Thornton Water Project Weld County Use by Special Review for Pipeline - Domestic Water Second Supplemental Permit Application - Appendixes, Volume 2 of 4 Cover Table of Contents ii *Appendixes Appendix A Natural and Cultural Resources Assessment Revised Natural and Cultural Resources Assessment, Thornton Water Project — Weld County Permit Areas, Weld County, Colorado Appendix B Stakeholder Outreach Information Appendix C Best Management Practices Appendix D Soils Reports Appendix E Community Outreach Information Appendix F Alternatives Analysis Technical Report Thornton Water Project, Reach 2 Alternative Corridors Analysis Appendix G ROW Feasibility Analysis Technical Memorandum TWP Feasibility of Alternatively Locating TWP Water Pipeline within Weld County Right -of -Way Thornton Water Project Weld County Use by Special Review for Pipeline - Domestic Water Second Supplemental Permit Application - USR18-0130 Permit Maps, Volume 3 of 3 USR18-0130 Permit Maps Thornton Water Project Weld County Use by Special Review for Pipeline - Domestic Water Second Supplemental Permit Application - Drainage Narrative Water Tank Exception to Stormwater Detention, Volume 4 of 4 *Drainage Narrative Thornton Water Project Water Tank Exception to Stormwater Detention Volume 1 Figures** Figure 4.1a TWP Location Map 4-2 Figure 4.1b TWP Location Map 4-3 Figure 4.2 Example Buried Appurtenances 4-5 Figure 4.3 Example Appurtenance: Water Tank 4-6 Figure 4.4 Water Tank Preliminary Layout 4-6 Figure 4.5 Pump Station 1 Preliminary Layout 4-8 Figure 4.6 Pump Station 2 Preliminary Layout 4-9 Figure 4.7 Construction Activities 4-14 Figure 4.8 TWP Timeline 4-16 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS v Figure 4.9a Geologic Hazards 4-30 Figure 4.9b Geologic Hazards 4-31 Figure 4.10a Floodplains 4-33 Figure 4.10b Floodplains 4-34 Figure 4.11a Potential Staging Locations 4-41 Figure 4.11b Potential Staging Locations 4-42 Figure 4.12a Possible Haul Routes 4-52 Figure 4.12b Possible Haul Routes 4-53 Figure 4.13a Possible TWP Access Locations 4-56 Figure 4.13b Possible TWP Access Locations 4-57 Figure 5.1 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-20 Figure 5.2 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-21 Figure 5.3 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-22 Figure 5.4 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-23 Figure 5.5 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-24 Figure 5.6 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-25 Figure 5.7 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-26 Figure 5.8 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-27 Figure 5.9 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-28 Figure 5.10 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-29 Figure 5.11 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-30 Figure 5.12 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-31 Figure 5.13 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-32 Figure 5.14 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-33 Figure 5.15 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-34 Figure 5.16 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-35 Figure 5.17 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-36 Figure 5.18 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-37 Figure 5.19 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-38 Figure 5.20 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-39 Figure 5.21 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-40 Figure 5.22 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-41 Figure 5.23 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-42 Figure 5.24 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-43 Figure 5.25 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-44 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS vi Figure 5.26 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-45 Figure 5.27 Adjacent Property Owner Notification Area 5-46 Figure 17.1a TWP Location Map 17-2 Figure 17.1b TWP Location Map 17-3 Figure 17.2a Railroad Crossings 17-9 Figure 17.2b Railroad Crossings 17-10 Figure 17.3a Possible TWP Access Locations 17-14 Figure 17.3a Possible TWP Access Locations 17-15 Figure 17.4a Possible Haul Routes 17-17 Figure 17.4b Possible Haul Routes 17-18 Figure 17.5 Sample Road Closure Types - (A) Road Closure with Diversion, (B) Partial Road Closure with Flaggers, (C) Road Closure with Diversion 17-21 Figure 24.1a Soils 24-3 Figure 24.1b Soils 24-4 Figure 24.2a Geologic Hazards 24-5 Figure 24.2b Geologic Hazards 24-6 Figure C.2.a.1a TWP Location Map C-2 Figure C.2.a.1b TWP Location Map C-3 Figure C.2.a.2 Example Buried Appurtenances C-4 Figure C.2.a.3 Example Appurtenance: Water Tank C-5 Figure C.2.a.4 Water Tank Preliminary Layout C-5 Figure C.2.a.5 Pump Station 1 Preliminary Layout C-7 Figure C.2.a.6 Pump Station 2 Preliminary Layout C-8 Figure C.2.c.la Floodplains C-18 Figure C.2.c.lb Floodplains C-19 Figure C.2.c.2a Soil Erodibility C-23 Figure C.2.c.2b Soil Erodibility C-24 Figure C.2.c.3 South Platte River Basin and Associated Alluvial Aquifers C-26 Figure C.2.d.1 TWP Timeline for Weld County C-28 Figure C.2.d.2 Construction Activities C-29 Figure C.2.d.3a Potential Staging Locations C-31 Figure C.2.d.3b Potential Staging Locations C-32 Figure C.2.d.4 Example Open -Cut Construction Section C-33 Figure C.2.ia Zoning C-48 Figure C.2.ib Zoning C-49 Figure C.2.la Possible Haul Routes C-87 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS vii Figure C.2.Ib Possible Haul Routes C-88 Volume 1 Tables*** Table I Summary of Minor Water Pipeline Alignment Adjustments 1-3 Table 4.1 Anticipated Water Pipeline Construction and Restoration Times for Open -cut Method for Road Crossings 4-26 Table 4.2 Anticipated Water Pipeline Construction and Restoration Times for Open -cut Method for Road Crossings 4-39 Table 4.3 Anticipated Construction Vehicles 4-47 Table 4.4 Anticipated Construction Vehicles 4-49 Table 4.5 Possible Construction Delivery and Commuting Routes 4-49 Table 4.6 Possible Post -construction Delivery and Commuting Routes 4-51 Table 5.1 List of Surrounding Property Owners within Weld County within 150 feet of the Centerline of the TWP 5-3 Table 5.2 List of Surrounding Property Owners within Larimer County within 150 feet of the Centerline of the TWP 5-18 Table 6.1 List of Owners of Irrigation Ditches or Laterals Traversing the TWP Easements or Appurtenant Facility Sites 6-1 Table 6.2 List of Owners of Pipelines Traversing the TWP Easements or Appurtenant Facility Sites 6-4 Table 17.1 Roadway Classifications and AADT 17-4 Table 17.2 TWP Railroad Crossings 17-8 Table 17.3 Anticipated Construction Vehicles 17-12 Table 17.4 Possible Haul, Delivery, and Commuting Routes 17-16 Table 17.5 Structurally Deficient Bridges Near the TWP 17-19 Table 17.6 Structures Posted for Load Restrictions Near the TWP 17-19 Table 24.1 Summary of Very Limited Rating from the TWP NRCS Soil Reports 24-1 Table C.2.c Impacted Existing Condition Reference to Mitigation Measures Location Supplement 2 C-16 Table C.2.d Probable Water Pipeline Construction Method at Defined Existing Features C-34 Table C.2.f Anticipated Water Pipeline Construction and Restoration Times for Open -cut Method for Road Crossings C-41 Table C.2.i Anticipated Water Pipeline Construction and Restoration Times for Open -cut Method for Road Crossing C-75 Table C.2.I Possible Haul, Delivery, and Commuting Routes C-86 Table G.1 Anticipated Water Pipeline Construction and Restoration Times for Open -cut Method for Road Crossings G-9 Table G.2 Impacted Existing Condition Reference to Mitigation Measures Location in Supplement 2 ..G- 11 Table G.3 Impacted Existing Condition Reference to Mitigation Measures Location Supplement 2 .. G-18 Table G.4 WCC Standards and Application Requirements Cross Reference Guide G-29 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS viii Volume 1 Exhibits**** Exhibit PG.1a Exhibit PG.1b Exhibit PG.1c Exhibit PG.ld Exhibit PG.2 Exhibit PG.3 Exhibit PG -4a Exhibit PG -4b Exhibit 12.1 Exhibit 12.2 Exhibit 12.3 Exhibit 12.4a Exhibit 12.4b Exhibit 12.5 Exhibit 12.6 Exhibit 12.7 Exhibit 12.8a Exhibit 12.8b Exhibit 12.9a Exhibit 12.9b Exhibit 12.10a Exhibit 12.10b Exhibit 12.11a Exhibit 12.11b Exhibit 12.12a Exhibit 12.12b Exhibit 12.13a Exhibit 12.13b Exhibit 12.14a Exhibit 12.14b Exhibit 12.15a Exhibit 12.15b Exhibit 12.16a Exhibit 12.16b February 6, 2020 Telephone Conversation (page 1 of 4) PG -2 February 6, 2020 Telephone Conversation (page 2 of 4) PG -3 February 6, 2020 Telephone Conversation (page 3 of 4) PG -4 February 6, 2020 Telephone Conversation (page 4 of 4) PG -5 February 6, 2020 Telephone Conversation E-mail Transmittal PG -6 February 6, 2020 Telephone Conversation E-mail Confirmation from Weld County PG -6 USR Procedural Guide (page 1 of 2) PG -7 USR Procedural Guide (page 1 of 2) PG -8 Berthoud Response to Weld County Planning 12-2 Firestone Signed Notice of Inquiry 12-3 Frederick Signed Notice of Inquiry 12-4 Mead Signed Notice of Inquiry 12-5 Mead Response to Notice of Inquiry 12-6 Milliken Signed Notice of Inquiry 12-7 Platteville Signed Notice of Inquiry 12-8 Severance Signed Notice of Inquiry 12-9 Windsor Response to Notice of Inquiry Request (page 1 of 2) 12-10 Windsor Response to Notice of Inquiry Request (page 1 of 2) 12-11 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Berthoud 12-12 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Berthoud 12-13 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Dacono 12-14 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Dacono 12-15 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Firestone 12-16 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Firestone 12-17 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Fort Lupton 12-18 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Fort Lupton 12-19 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Frederick 12-20 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Frederick 12-21 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Johnstown 12-22 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Johnstown 12-23 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Mead 12-24 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Mead 12-25 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Milliken 12-26 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Milliken 12-27 TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ix Exhibit 12.17a Exhibit 12.17b Exhibit 12.18a Exhibit 12.18b Exhibit 12.19a Exhibit 12.19b Exhibit 12.20a Exhibit 12.20b Exhibit 12.21 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Platteville 12-28 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Platteville 12-29 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Severance 12-30 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Severance 12-31 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Timnath 12-32 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Timnath 12-33 Notice of Inquiry Email Request to Windsor 12-34 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment to Windsor 12-35 Notice of Inquiry Email Request Attachment for All Requests 12-36 *Note: Attached report. **Note: Figures included in attached reports* are not included in table of contents list. ***Note: Tables included in attached reports* are not included in table of contents list. ****Note: Exhibits included in attached reports* are not included in table of contents list. TWP USR SUPPLEMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS x Appendix B Stakeholder Outreach Information Irrigation and Ditch Companies Figure 2 Thornton Water Project in Weld County accompanies each irrigation ditch company letter. Curtis 1. ate Rlsr CANYON RD NEVA RD NIWOT.RD LOOKOUT RD ISABELLE v4µO145 4LD Thornton PR(. CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 3/30/2020 RD ti s 2.75 ERIE PKWY 5.5 Miles 1 inch = 5.5 miles `Task •Raerriilr• nMNATH Water Tank Location Wit thee `(la! - WINDSOR TMAN PARK DR GREELEY 1H SI o PIERCE 4Th ST` --%." r 5 cr \ 18TH ST 25TH ST Pump Station Location) EVANS ci° 4 LA SALLE Dion Paabc Rawoad FIRESTONE FREDERICK DACON0 A re U CR 42 MWLIKEN GILCREST CR 32.50 Sand !li 11 Lake Pump Station Location 188TH AVE` - / BASELINE RD ssS - TWP Alignment in Weld County - County Boundary Railroad BRIGHTON River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir HUDSON Figure 2 Thornton Water Project in Weld County W:1478988 THORNTON NORTHERN PROJECTITASK ORDER 515.1_ PERMITTING\GIS\MAPFILES\WELD_USRIOUTREACH\PERMITAPP2020\UTILITIES OVERVIEW 85X11 MXD JQUAN 3/30/2020 9:38:05 AM �� City of i1�'Thorn#on Ir.frastructure hr1aIriEcriarce Cern,2` 1'?d50 Wa31,ingion Street 7'lori'an. CO 90241-2406. wwN, !h4rn`or.Y.Mternicteci corn April 9, 2020 Mr. John Howard Yoxall Ditch Company 8679 Weld County Road 4 Brighton; CO 80603 in"rasirucIure D parrnerit Thcol) cJn ti''dter Pro+ezt 72-77-170 Fd.x 7217-;r 7-r2Q`? RE- Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Howard: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larirner County to Thornton, TVVP components include approximately 60 mlles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Wed County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TVVP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment • A copy or example of a typical facility crossinglencroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. John Howard April 9, 2020 Page 2 ■ General design and construction requirements • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting: or transfer the requested information. please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCG.gov or 720-977-6264, Respectfully, John I-1 myak Thornton Water Project Engineer CO/OF C0w0 Thornton WATER PROJECT CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/8/2020 1 inch = 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend ammo TWP Alignment Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Yoxail Ditch Weld County ri r:A1111111_TMOfRTON NOYTNIRTs_/RonCTITA$* QRtit R.re I PE$NITt*4CCt$WMPF11UM" t0 USA'01TC14ES'PFANJTAPP2Q20?A202O_OITCN_CR06S1NGS NXO I)U&NS* WW*411a w J City of iy"Thornton IntrasTrictur Maintenance Center 12450 Washington Street P! .:,rnton. L(] 8G241•2405 www 7i'omrnnwvalarprojec[ corn April 8, 2020 Mr. Gary Howard Big Dry Creek Ditch and Reservoir Company 2528 Weld County Road 19 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 fnrrastruc[ure Department Thornton] 1NHfer Pro•ect 720-977-6700 F t 720.977-6'C1 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Howard: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TVVP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank; and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed, The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities_ In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. Gary Howard April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Hirnyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer r: -0010 I t 2►. tLI 1691/11040 ERN LTD PPARrM I:eauf ,CR211U" 'CR 24 'tan CR ?� R10 Tit Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHING TON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 S 1 inch = 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend imms TWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Thompson DstcrvBsq Dry Creek Ditch Weld County A Hirai TS4)W IIrt00 VW1la 111 rvt,)/(C MIA1t Orin Y alt S; sw t lwrOt.Suwwii'Jag a Ulna 'flet %1 Ma I APPNIANNenetantiI.c4ossnGS VI .0.1A tal:01of 17 1- Ak� City of Ay- Thornton Infrast.ructure tvla'�ianance �� ter 12450 Washing;v SEreel Thornton CO 80241 -?4p5 WWW Morli101lW3EE'rprojE'C.I Corr} April 8, 2020 Ms. Eve Craven Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company 80 S. 271" Ave. Brighton, CO 80601 Infra.In.+Ctury Department Ttrcr' ton Projeel 720-77-6700 Far 720-977-6202 RE. Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Ms. Craven: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). TheTVVP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners, Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TVVP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TVVP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TVVP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information. • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Ms. Eve Craven April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design 2nd construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Hirnyak@ThorntonCO gov or 720-977-6264 Respectfully, t:= John Hirnyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Mr'- )4,' ass•. +. VIZ cRf DIR: • • tuw}k i Thornton YA_ .t(H nnojr ► CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241.2405 0 4/2/2020 1 inch = 500 feet 250 500 Feet Legend TWP Alignment Ditch • County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Stanley Desch Weld County V 17130 'MORMTOV_VO4MIIIV Ken arc fTAStt AIMti S1S 1 PTROI Ttat ^,1GS9MADftt"-civet I1) $IC$41004 WO* JOU.% TI IMMO. IUF r tuta KI TftI77 ,/1 u Z, tttt. )r ' 1O14 Au1.1 I• (3176.04 as Thornton CITY OF THORNT0N COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 S 1 inch - 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend amp TWP Alignment Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Stanley Lateral Ditch Weld County .v ilhhe 'IKJIi1(IQN'OKI It w1,PRO.ECRTASI-Ow3t4 SKI P Win fA;.44SWAP; ItrStWW.1O US**) ICInt51VtvYN•AAPROJCWAflhI_Qu1LII,CR(KSIYGS10XII 4)4 1A14 410(7070 5 4 14 AV rThornton~ CITY OF THORN TON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 4/2/2020 'v 1 inch - 500 feet 250 500 Feet Legend TWP Alignment Ditch - County Boundary Parce' Boundary figure 1 Thornton Water Project Bull Cana Weld County N d 1nfl DOW' 1)% VAoil Oa V nllllIt t%TAct A4fit M tit. se wait Isd_tr_sa• t rs in ••aern •leSae r as.. •.0 Sae a.....- .- • mv lgullWWI YlIl AM♦unpin e•I1I4L{/ City of Ay Thornton Infrasiruciure M2�nkr anC2 Canker 'I2450 Washirlgterk Street Thornton. CO S:}241-24 05 www Iharr.tonwaterprojecl :cm April 8, 2020 Mr. Alfred Sater New Coal Ridge Ditch Company 10879 County Road 17 Longmont, CO 80504 InfraslrL:ctlre Deporcroen1 Tharfr.o0 INaie PDolec 720-97:7-6700 Fax 720-77 r320=} RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Sater: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TVVP). The TVVP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 50 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TVVP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a 'Referral Agency' of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TVVP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement ■ If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing, Mr. Alfred Safer April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TAP water pipeline alignment Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at Jahn.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264 Respe Ily John Himyalc Thornton Water Project Engineer CR.10 CR:t. 31lOaIU►C11 i art:Item IZUOLt, ►•110110101 /lcrLLvtt.SPATMCK ItI)mm•0101 `m1 ►61(. An Lis' . Thornton CITY OF THORN ( ON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST TI 1ORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 S 1 inch - 500 feet 0 250 500 •� Feet legend ems TWP Alignment --- Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Coal Ridge Ditch Weld County •c.±•.11 IOWN I[l\_ NOW NItWV_ 1►ttf)fCtllask Plat _Rt1 o"RRI-SCACiSVAAw.nlStwr I) iKA:1:tCIit5144Wit ANAIUOVPAMPtlenI'Cf.' C'.OSSnnCS'nfl ;C)t1AV!N0C191/l IA AU .2,002 City of Ay Thornton Infrasto;cture Main4e7ance Cen«r 14'50 Wasn,nyton Street Tnaro;r,ri, CO $J24I-2405 wwve thorntonwW&I-prolec1 o,r April 8, 2020 Mr. Howard Cantrell Lupton Bottom Ditch Company 11016 Weld County Road 23 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 rlraslruclure uepar;menl Tncrnton Water Project 720 -9774j7 -0.J FdY 72F.1 -977.e202 RE Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Cantrell: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the -11/VP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TVVP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossingiencroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. Howard Cantrell April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements • General information about existing infrastructure within the TVVP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.F-limyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-97T6264. Respectfully, ohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer emowsar 70 r vitatiatiacce %0 pow asj ISA s t> . Cry Thornton :ritrn NA%)tf CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 802.41-2405 0 4/2/2020 w 1 inch 500 feet 250 500 Feet t egend TWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Lupton Meadows Weld County OY Y t Rion n\ ww ?Milt run a r Ists nrn u Mt I r.eat • ►wG.t• us t ♦NN. / O YSF1110 'N w, MP. IYrrl01'A anift WPM" Csan i Y[Q )QUAY 4 llf0I0 ! 4114 AM �tCty of Ay-i Thornton Ir rastructt,-e Maintenance Cerrer ?2450 Was'ngton Street rr.orntnn, C[$24I-2405 wwsv thorntor.waterproaec! :om April 8, 2020 Mr. Garrett Varra Last Chance Ditch and Reservoir Company 11955 Weld County Road 15 Longmont, CO 80504 Infrastructure ❑e artrnent Trumton Water 720-977-6700 Fax 770-$77 x,202 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Varra The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TVVP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TVVP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County. which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42-ineh water pipeline and associated appurtenances Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a `'Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TVVP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TVVP water pipeline alignment • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable. a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. Garrett Varra April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John_Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 72D-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer r. •vr*�• tat d`%r4• 41,14441 t/09ITIODCKI Lt. tVtPIS tt t ttlta MIMS 1.414210.14 'AVM as i se 1109)7000001 stg AV( t:MI8 f t4E •:rck4 + OWNdi (( 'j it t CCX W =Ma `MI ti:XE01) 4.11 Situ eaatc,411 'S u (44te CN Si CR30, S -CM 14 Se . 2) +� h z r 'a 2 V Cat s I ‘,tWJJ/2.1. eThornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 1 rich 1,000 feet 0 510 1,020 Feet Legend ems TWP Alignment Ditch • County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Last Chance Ditch Weld County Annan to logs Toll it tit _iMIDSCnM I MIDI MI at?vtt T GtC SUMprttiS WF tD ISA1D1(CMESt•t kW T/W)tp:OtPA?Ote 01ICto CANS%nrs VI : .OJAN 400010 I 4714 a � city of cr Thornton Inrrastrucllrre MaoIenar.ce Center 12450 VVashin;ton Street TnaPnLor,, C C 80241-2435 www rhorntcnwarerp'rojec. corn April 8, 2020 Farmers Extension Ditch Company P.O. Box 159 Johnstown, CO 80534 nrras'rucn.r-e Departm&ni Thornton Water Proecl 7m0.977.67"fl Fax .720-977-6202 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline f Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application- Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TVVP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Farmers Extension Ditch Company April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements t General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment Thank you and for questions, 10 coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectful) ohn Himyak e Thornton Water Protect Engineer 10s92900r)0f1 Ix SON 0ROS t P icr sit xtension C IA VI. ti IllIKACI.D I 1411r;•lOWU: 105932000028 11CPP DONAt i) r • • r. 10%12910003/ MANUA 0C vt tic .• a a U CR 111.) CR36- CR .1i CR 101 ►t•S l- 104/01 Kai) I +Kktil.! kJllZ�►1A1 (4Thornton I"auto., CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 S 1 inch = 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend TWP Alignment Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Farmers Extension Ditch Weld County w wogs Inns%lor wtalu<$ lei VIM it t rytAl• [htW it %'% 1 90 *Vat <1'r4Y.+psnnturn (0 U1aaU/ICNCi1Y1 f*IAPO/CriV AMrO Deters CsIntsarci DASD %)11At1 WiThiQ i <I 11 AY DAk meoe-City of Nyi Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 12450 Washington Street Thornton, CO 8U241-2405 wow., thorntonwaterproiect corn April 22, 2020 Consolidated Hillsborough Ditch Company 612 Charlotte St. Johnstown, CO 80534 Infrastructure Department Thornton Water Prc+ject 720-977-5700 Fax. 720-977-S202 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a 'Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Consolidated Hillsborough Ditch Company April 22, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer 09573010004S 'Tff NIKE TIMOTHY L. I (>35730300047 ;iEfrTN! R KIPP ?VIA R .}15 1010004t4 T tit t ANT nci %7 7 1 000010 T 41C 11 SitVtNId in 5; 30000040 VETTI R MARGAU!►t 415110000040 VT STIR MAR(;AU( l tIAl V .e tins u CRl6 LW 14 C R 32 —.4GR 40 Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 `<< 1 inch = 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend moms TWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Hillsboro Ditch Weld County a n.wya vww M♦. rcIC_II Wt..cbc-• art Ut sun. lo_Ig}Ry1via yawns TWP/lWDP*,W0 CIOICM O1O5311111MW IDIOM WMs•*111-11 f liti '�► '1 �.� . 3 .••••••_••• t row' ',1-..'' .1 - a .► Ca111 M),n A•• I• t1.AVA1) (. LO••• VL2ifif' • S t'-t!:?*X tt) AI -tier) • r VU': L•3:: vs 1c cRsau C1t16 CR34 CR12 2 mu? c 16 Cr Thornton almaS'T, • CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 1 inch -- 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend 'mos TWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Hill and Brush Ditch Weld County w1f1A4l/TON YOHMrRS_JWWOIECTAT AS4 ORO tt SIS, ►! *WIC P ' AWArt IMt10 %KIWI It Du Can drag &nnrceine tO al ten cu[ iaritaWXD )OUAYYNTOICff:14Am kk City of cr Thornton Infrastructure MaIntenanc7a C rifer 12450 V sihington Street Thornton. CO 80241-2405 lww thorntor,waterpr ;ect corn April 8, 2020 Mr. Robert Schlegel Highland Ditch Company 4309 State Highway 66 Longmont, Co 80504 hfrostructure Qepartme.n1 T1onnton Water Project 770-977.67O fax 7,[0-977-Ij2L? RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline ! Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Schlegel: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 50 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton Is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TVVP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facillty operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment, ■ A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. Robert Schlagel April 8, 2x20 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at Jahn. Himyak a@ThomtonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, �n Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer S116100056 AUJWuU;IAR cat1Rt ILL Thornton .YwtI N r't • CITY OF THORN f ON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 4/2/2.020 if24Nto% mom Jtat 4V .+•.Y:i1CTt7AS[ f)I:fIU,fl3I_.'tWU' S4ctr• !'A^rllr%Vert14) ir51'u RKllenOWN APOPU mAnnOfrCie CRgssncctan IquA'i1r tattoof I ? MA wwl 1 inch = 500 feet 250 500 Feet OA POI ( iJ u1C 1At. 'ROuERT,46.. t t �. laces f&Ugty TRU'-. Legend illomPTWP Alignment --- Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary �5e�t�it -*CR46 fir S i<at,tRte' Se ws "1t. tA4n 4) tt1 ribt03W I et's. Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Farmers Ditch Weld County Ak City of 00 cr Thornton Infrast,ucture Maintenance Center Infrast.ueture Department 12450 Arasi irtytcn Strut Th^ratan 4Va‘er Prci acr Tho'nlon. CO 80241-?4D5 �0 vr7-574u www thorr,tonwaterprojeL1 trim F2x 72G-s+77-1i202 April 8, 2020 Mr, David Burnhardt Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Company 808 23'd Ave. Greeley, CO 80634 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Burnhardt: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton`s existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County. which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42-inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50-foot wide permanent easement and 40-foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application, Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TVVP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County_ Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. David Burnhardt April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements_ • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak a[7ThorntonCO gov or 724-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer 0hS11A:t100SS WECl1C:UU►iTV 1)95)1 f (.I Ali ' :I eNta J9S)THIQ30f COt 11NS SR R'N 09%7ISi0102♦ r10(31111%(),1 HARItY ca CR 30 CR 34 Thornton CITY OF THORNT0N COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241 -2405 0 4/2/2020 1 inch = 500 feet 250 500 Feet Legend TWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Loveland and Greeley Canal Weld County 'W 111191111 I11(1WM/IW4 1011 tiff WY PRp11 CTIT ASK CIROIR CAS I ijtaYM lVbt..C.,S:W1r• • • "...PO i 0 US91Th1CN1 S:Pt RU'tAPf?O)OPA7OJO UIIC$I C445S mcs Mxn .QW1V uW1207014? 14 APO moCity of Ay Thornton tnfrastrL..cosre Maintznanc.e Center 12450 Wasirinator, Street 1 hcrnlon, CO 50241-2405 r.+ww lnorntonwaterora,ect vrrn April 8, 2020 Mr. Dale Trowbridge Cache La Poudre Reservoir Company P.O. Box t04 Lucerne, CO 80646 Ilfrastructure Department Triorriton UJ ter Pr;ject 720-7".5700 >'"2x 7;2O-'fir!-M2V2 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Trowbridge: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TVVP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances, Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr. Dale Trowbridge April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John. Hirnyak@ThorntoneO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully. jJohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer C�vim DR -1 • 11 Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 'v S 1 inch - 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend TWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Greeley No 2 Canal Weld County w44 ;fl Iimam fr•(fl Apr ,.: vv rWWI PLIII AM_UKNK_SIS1_PIQ4.Tttic,rr,water I(E%tWI•I) IJSbra' !CIt[SU4j4M41A 0)0311rIPAJII kt• CYt/l 441MilI4 Int.*\ 1dn7,70147'4 RIM idCity of Ay Thornton Infra;truc eMan'enanceCenter [2450 V'Jash'rgton Sleet Tho'nton. CO 8024 I-2405 Iho,ntonwaterpr0;ecI corn, April 8, 2020 Mr. Justin Green Lake Canal Reservoir Company 13329 Weld County Road 74 Eaton, CO 80615 lrfrasrructure Da arty er4 Thornton Naker Project 720-977-577 OO Fax 720.977.8202 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline 1 Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr, Green The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TVVP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties_ Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application_ Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossinglencroachrnent agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr, Justin Green April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me al John. Himyak@ThorntonCO,gov or 720-977-5264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer S 01.0S111 u ROC,: At tiA ROAD lUT', 40706!00004 uttal0(NV Thornton .v�ttu r• CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 4/2/2020 1 inch = 500 feet 0 250 500 Feet Legend amosTWP Alignment Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Lake Canal Weld County W Miahi_1.40w* 70v_+WRTN! a PION CMAUI ORM. *VI •t ht, 1 MO. tC %1uAn w ( ♦ N/t 1 G l,`.*tit PChiUri WetAPPISPO1IA707l 04/CH t*OSWfC4 MID Kkvag I MO?0 i ti /l AIM adlk city of vie Thornton Inf!'@SIrLIC.:!WC Maintenance Cent .r 12450 WasNr ghon Strew, 7,iorru n, CO 8024 i-2405 WWW thr illtUnWeIercro;eCt Cr2f11 April 8, 2020 Latimer & Weld Irrigation Company 106 Elm Ave. Eaton, CO 80615 Infrasructtire Deparlment Thr?r'11on'W te' krOjeCC 720 -X77 -a704 Fax. 7?0-977-5 D RE, Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application far the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The attached Figure fi shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities, In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. - General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCG.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Protect Engineer me N CR 4 " a �J u CRP l Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 4/2/2020 w 1 inch = 500 feet 250 500 Feet Legend TWP Alignment - --• Ditch - County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Lamer and Weld Canal Weld County ,J M. ^4IJ P1t'IA AOWL], 7_Sibs Ml ^rvi Tawas ., f yint0 tow ample Val an. Ar)fflVAIM_Oe?CH CgOfSA1tasgo .:•� city of wenThornton Inir8truc;nrr h airlteronce Cantor 12450 Nastiingtor• Street Thamton. cc 36241.2405 www thorntri^laterprov.ct ccm April 8. 2020 Mr. Dennis Harmon Water Supply and Storage Company 2319 E. Mulberry St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jnirastructure Qpartmnt Thornton ',Nate! Project '70-9r7-€IQO F:ax 720-977-6202 RE: Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Harmon: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (11/VP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a ''Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County. Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment Thornton is requesting the following information. ▪ Information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline alignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossinglencroachment agreement. • If applicable. a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Mr_ Dennis Harmon April 8, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements, • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment Thank you and for questions, to coord nate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John_Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264_ Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer 010S0i41U►O () %(.00,t ,(►t tt vARt.A1:1_ T•A '..'?y ":ttt• ♦•.II V .14 iliaint0 I (AY,t'v nibs' CR 84 OVINE k 01040640cL.' s w� '• i M tl}i'�u R(K&CRT 0)/00?)S Ts.4. Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 1?450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 4/2/2020 1 inch = 500 feet 250 500 Feet Legend amm■ TWP Alignment Ditch • County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Lorimer County Canal Weld County 1a I Sla I HS% 1 M %OW m as Oa if ell AILS AQt3t u tat • ousts t tarrvt.cau♦ nrn r e..ur. N..a 4'WW Atlr . U R. 'V JPINIV111,1111.114111 a �►�cdi, of Ay Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 12450 Washington Street Thornton, CO 80241-2405 www thorntonwaterproject corn April 22, 2020 Loren Maxey North Poudre Irrigation Company P.O. Box 100 Wellington, CO 80549 infrastructure Oepartment Thornton Water Project 720.977.0700 Faz X20 g X202 RE. Thornton Water Project Water Pipeline / Irrigation Ditch Facility Coordination Request Dear Loren: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilitates in Weld and Larimer counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances, Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency' of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows locations that we have identified where the TWP water pipeline crosses your facilities. In the event that there are other facilities that you own that we may have missed, we've included Figure 2 that shows the overall TWP water pipeline alignment in Weld County_ Please review the attached figures, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings of the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thornton is requesting the following information: • information on existing or planned irrigation facilities crossed by the TWP water pipeline aignment. • A copy or example of a typical facility crossing/encroachment agreement. • If applicable, a copy of a crossing application or other process and estimated timing. Loren Maxey April 22, 2020 Page 2 • General design and construction requirements. • General information about existing infrastructure within the TWP water pipeline alignment. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting, or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer E.OOONT,Y ROAD,52 • :Y+z53OCXCO2O sPAP S Thornton F:,lut T CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 4/2/2020 w 1 inch = 700 feet 350 700 Feet Legend asTWP Alignment Ditch County Boundary Parcel Boundary Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Cowan Ditch Lateral Weld Count/ *-- f.4�t--.,- -.11'.."...."."4"54 "-e,%.n%nn n1_�n wiTww aa1 nt keasnnvc"lart RIP $APPMire A aOC_CAOSsaatV SSeflRtONIisme Utility Providers Figure 1 Thornton Water Project in Weld County accompanies each utility company letter. NELSON RD HYGIENE RD� ' 1 Cp 1� JARD- Her ran- - ✓� rA FORT COLUNS't II vl ILIBY RD -a 29TH: ;1/4i Lail Ls'ssdJ ..44444,124 4 • Soatk'Side Reservoir Loans o w trr\-s- K elch� RtJprli(e: dal0 CR 8 7 47— 41:HAVE 9TH AVE (Cr cbtr()CRIES J a Larineer County, Water Tank Location v1 WINDSOR =`\yWeld County z s Newell o s late BERTHOUD 1— 56, f isn � a I r fnRA 'Jai tote a) Cal .- L. V =zi 4 m ti QC - J O F S 17TH AVE , I U - Caltitas Late RD•AVC LOOKOUT RD r co ISABELLE RDV '"ERIE L ( 1 1 yr cr ERIE PKWY te O rr — V \' FIRESTONE BD FIRESTONE u CR16 FREDERICK DACONO � s NORTHGLENN 51 LOUISVILLE ' 1 BROOMFIELD' ` THORNTON TMAN PARK OR GREELEY 37TH ST Pump Station Location cc `MIL'LIKEN C� Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 0 3/30/2020 2.75 5.5 Miles FORT LUPTON Pump Station Location 168TH AVE{ CR 8 LOCHBUIE BASELINE RD t _ BRIGHTON TWP Alignment in River/Stream/Canal/Ditch IS Weld Countyr 1 Lake/Reservoir - County Boundary Railroad 6:f CR 4 Weld County tire - Adams County• N, CR 50 I Hose Crlret I Reservoir Figure 1 Thornton Water Project in Weld County 1 inch = 5.5 miles W:1478988 THORNTON NORTHERN PROJECTITASK ORDER 515.1 PERMITTING\GIS\MAPFILES\WELD USRIOUTREACHIPERMITAPP20201UTILITIES OVERVIEW 85X11 MXD JQUAN 3/30/2020 9:38:05 AM �� City of Ivo Thornton n{ra$In lure. Maintenance Center 1245C Washington Site& T 1orr'on CO 8024 I -2405 '•NWw Chclntonwa rproJect con-. April 9, 2020 KN Gas Gathering, Inc 1001 Louisiana St, Ste 1000 Houston, TX 77002 ln.lrastruc'ure. newt -new Tr, UMW n Project 720-977-6700 Fax 720-977-6202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Latimer County to Thornton. TVVP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Latimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the US permit process, various agencies in the area of the TVVP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies on examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at Johm.Hoilyak@TnointonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfull n Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer �City of yhh1Thornton InfraS'.rt. urn Maintenance Center 17:150 V'Jashir9LA-1 Street Tr14rr,rr?n CO 30241.2405 wWW rhorntonwaterpro)aet corn April 9, 2020 Ms. Lisa Harrill Occidental 1099 18th St., Ste 1800 Denver, CO 80202 I*rastnULtUre Department Tnofnton Water Project 72C-;77-Lj700 Fax 720-R77-5202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline ! Utility Coordination Request Dear Ms. Harrill: The ply of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TVVP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWA' components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pomp stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP_ • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information: construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information. please contact me at John .Hirn r�ak(a?ThorntonCO3gav or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer �City of 1� Thornton Inter strL,cture Mace dance Gen(er 1.2450 Washmeton Street Th,r)mtar CO 802..11-241:-.5 www rh4rntonwter1roJec-t corn April 9, 2020 Mr. Sean Chambers Greeley Water & Sewer Department 1001 1111 Ave. , Ste 200 Greeley, CO 80631 tnfrastricture ❑epartrnent Thor 'to.i Vt12tef pfoject 720-977-6?;;C Fax 726-g77-1326.2 RE Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline 1 Utility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Chambers: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that wild convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Lorimer County to Thornton TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to pruvlde review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP_ • Copies or examples of typical facility crossinglencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak{r ThorntonCO gov or 720-977-6264. John Hirnyak Thornton Water Project Engineer .e. City of i1e-Thornton I7frastrrlcture rMn;ntenance Certer 12 150 Vdashingtvo Sireei Thornton. CO 60241-2465 www tnornton',Vdter„rrjeCt corm April 9, 2020 Northern Natural Gas 1111 S. 103rd St. Omaha, NE 68124 IrirRstructure Departrne^,t Thornton Water Proiec: 720,977,5700 Fax 720-977.6202 RE: Thornton Water Project TA/VP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larirner County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles ofwater transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Latimer counties Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement far construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application, Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements O7 future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed, The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP • Copies or examples of typical facility crossinglencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John 1-lirn.yakiAThorntonC0.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, hn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer City of 1y Thornton Jnfrastro;kure rvi :wer.ance Center 2459 Washington Street Thornton, CO 10_41-2405 WNW tl1OrntonvvaterprojecL COM April 9, 2020 BP Amoco 1700 Platte St., Ste 15D ❑enver, CO 80202 Intrastruc Llf Qeparkrnenl Thornton Water Project, 720 917-6'fl4 Fax: 72O-977-622 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed, The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information. • information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP, • Copies or examples of typical facility crossingiencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process lime. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at Joht7.Hi nyak u,TllorntonCO goo or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, Jahn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer cty of ��iThornton In`rastr:,chirp Maintenance Center 2450 Streek T'ornton, CO 352;1.245 W5,VW :i:orntanwaterorojec. Lone April 9, 2020 Suncor Energy (USA) Pipeline Co 1715 Fieischti Pkwy Cheyenne, WY 82001 Intrascructure Deparrrelt Thornton lhlarer Pro;ec- 7:20-.977-700 Fax. 72O-977-5202 RE Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TVVP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information; construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John Hirnyak@ThorntonCO gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyaic Thornton Water Project Engineer �t�. City of Ay Thornton Infrastruc:u,e. Mai;-tenance Ce,r:er 245 Washinglan Street Thor' :Dn CO 3C2 4 / WW thornlonwarerr:roj r,t 4om April 9, 2020 PDC Energy 1775 Sherman St Denver, CO 80203 I.nfrastrsctjre dearlmer.l Ti;or,:ron Water Project 720-977-670G =ax 720-977-8202 RE. Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline f Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application, Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities, Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information- • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TVVP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John Himvak a(7ThorntonCO,gov or 720-977-6264, Respectfully, John Himyak-.-- Thornton Water Project Engineer << City of 1�Thornton Infrastr;ictjre MaintertancE Cancer ' 2450 Washington 51i -Le: T;',rnion. CO 502z 1.2405 A".vw trom:OnwaterprnJed noir April 9, 2020 Xcel Energy 1800 Lorimer St., Ste 1100 Denver, CO 80202 nfri trLi lire Department Thpmt.n Water Prejec1 7?0-977.e 700 Fax 120-077-2 02 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom it May Concern. The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton, TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Lorimer counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information; • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP_ • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a r-eeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John Himyak(oThorntonCG goy or 720-977-0264 Respectfully, Sohn Himyak _ Thornton Water Project Engineer .00•0c�ty of i1r Thornton InfrastruCwre tvla'ntenance Center 12456 Wasnogton 5treel Torn CO $0241-245 :^1�N1^1!ho:rt01'4i L rprojP.Ct Crlrn April 9, 2020 Saddle Butte Pipeline 1900 16th St., Ste 1550 Denver, CO 80202 Infrastructure Department Thomtbr1 UV I er Project 7'10-977-670Ci Far: 720-977-52C2 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton, TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USER) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John l-llmyekL ThorntanCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer City of cr Thornton im'rastri,clure I'1intenarice CenLe-r 12450 Waslii rytchr Stree! Thui -'on_ CO 40241.24C5 wrw thorntorevatzrprolect 4on April 9, 2020 Mr. Brad Wind Northern Water 220 Water Ave. Berthoud, CD 80513 Ir'`rastructure Depar- trlent 1'horrrcr, Water Prniec1 7:2Q -97 7-.W0() -5700 Fax rte -577-x,3202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Wind: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP), The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TVVP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information. • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements, • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time, Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak(ThorntonCCgov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, ohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer �<< Ci ��#y of Thornton I;Yfrastructure M7inten2rte Centel- -1-24-S0 fVashmgton Street Tharrrori. CO no -241-2405 nv,Nw khomkonwazerpmier:! corn April 9, 2020 Mr Stan Linker Central Weld County Water District 2235 2"d Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Infraskructure Gepr<arrrr Thornton V.tGter Project 720-77-6700 Fax 720-J77.62O2 RE. Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request Dear Mr. Linker- The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TVVP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of burled 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application- Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings Thornton is requesting the following information; • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the T VP. ■ Copies or examples of typical facility crossinglencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time, Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at ,Joliii }-NinyakgjhorntonCO gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, Thornton Water Project Engineer City of iy Thornton Irfrastructura Maintenance Center 12450 Was1irygron StreeE r ,arnton. CO 844 1-2405 w,.vw'F.0rnEnrwarerprojeCL Con^ April 9, 2020 Devon Energy 333 W. Sheridan Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102-5015 Int'astrucluie ❑cparViien1 Thairtan Water Prcryeci 720-977-6700 F6X.. 72)-977-4.3202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline ! Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP)_ The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton, TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeiine and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency'' of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future faoilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed_ The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typ+cal facility crossinglencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time_ Thankyou and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak @ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, ohn Hirrtyak Thornton Water Project Engineer City of mei Thornton InfrastruG,ure Mainterrance Gene. 124.50 Washpi ton Street Thorntaiti, Ct 8D24 I -2405 WWW thCvntui'Wa1Zrpr1-)lect ocm April 9, 2020 DCP Midstream, LP 370 17th St.. Ste 2500 Denver, CO 80202 tnfrestrueture Department Thnrn;on Water Project U4-977-57CO Foc720-07'-4202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom it May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP)_ The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Wafer Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which fncluctes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typical#y, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "'Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application_ Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of exsting, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities_ Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings, Thornton is requesting the following information' • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. * Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Hin1yakti TnorntonCO,gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, lnhn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Akc�ty of men Thornton IrM'asuiin ,e M ir}tenance Cu't(?_r 1?450 WasJ rgtan Strew. Thornton, CO 8O241 -24O5 wvwwv Lt JrrFlanwv�t rproJeCt 4�ni April 9, 2020 Extraction Gil & Gas 370 17th St. , Ste 5300 Denver, CO 80202 Infra: tructLire IDeparlrnenq Thorr.!o i Water Protect +2d-9' -8707 tax 720-977-202 RE Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline 1 Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TVVP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -Inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -toot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: ■ information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. ■ Copies or examples of typical facility crossinglencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John. HimyakcThorntonCD gov or 720-977-6264, Respectfully, I John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Ci ��ty of Thornton Infras.rt,Ctkire B aiiitenonce C2rlt2r 12450 Wa shi-igtoi Street T!hcrntoii CO 8021,-7105 ww'n Corr, April g, 2020 Kerr-McGee/Anadarko/Dxy 370 Van Gordon St, Lakewood, Co 80228 Infrastrucure Departr :er3`. Thornton Wa.er Pro a^.I 7?ry-9r/-7co i=ax 72O-977-5202 RE Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline 1 Utility Coordination Request To Whom h May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners, Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TINE' are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency'. of Weld County to provide review and comment en the supplemental permit application Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP, • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at JohnHirnyak@TharntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, �sy Thornton Water Project Engineer �l� city of Ile Thornton Irf[g5trucw eNilantenance Conker 12450 Was'linglcn StrPat Thor'ito CO 8,0241.24Q6 wvrw Inc nronwarerpr71ec1 corn April 9, 2020 NGL Water Solutions, LLC 3773 Cherry Creek North Dr., Ste 1000 Denver, CO 80209 Intrastrur;k[:re GepartmPnt Th. rntac 'Hater Prcjedt 720-17.1-6 700 rax 720-977.62G2 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline I Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is ;r1 the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements_ • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John Himyak@ThorntonCO qov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer It� City of Ay Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 12450 Washington Street Thornton, CC 80241.2475 www thorntanwaterproject core Apnl 29, 2020 Williams One Williams Center PC Sox 2400 Tulsa, OK 74102-2400 tnfrastructure Department Thornton Water Protect 720-977-6704 Fax 720-977-6202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TVVP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thorntonis developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners, Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a 'Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John l-irnyak c@ThorntonCO.gav or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Hirnyak Thornton Water Project Engineer �� City of yThornton lnfrastructu+e Maintenance Center 12450 Wasn'ngtan Street Thornton, CO 80241-240 www thorntonwatarproject corn April 22, 2020 Natural Gas Associates 1801 Broadway, Ste 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Infrastructure Department Thointon Water Project 720-977-6710 Fax 72Q-977-u2o2 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances Typically, a 50 --foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings_ Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time, Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John. HirnyakEiThorntonCO pv or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Ak� city of Ay -Thornton infrastructure Maintenanc.e Center 12aw VVashirccton street Thr7 nrcn. CO [324,•2405 wV" tli0rrttmwaier❑reject cum April 9, 2020 Energy Transfer 8111 Westchester Dr Dallas, TX 75225 Infrastructure Deuarmenh. Thornton UVater Prc7..iech 720-977-6'700 Fax 720.977�e202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TA/VP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies In the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information. • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP, • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. ■ General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Hirr ak a`!ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer �� City of i1eThornton rnfrastruc'rue tv aHoienance Crete, 12450 VL'asi..nv;ori Street Thor.to'•., CO 5[]241.2405 v v' '.Pr7'nt3n da erpr,iiect COW April 9, 2020 United Water and Sanitation District 8301 W. Prentice Ave., Ste 120 Greenwood Village, CD 80111 Infrastructure D-epartment Thornton Water Project ?2Q -J7? a7Cn Fax 7_2Q-97;' ;32Q2 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Latimer County to Thornton TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process. various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review tine attached figure with respect 10 your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TkA/P. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John tlirriyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John F-timyak Thornton Water Project Engineer City of rThornton IIlTraSteucture NEaarrtelArlc2 C2ntc r 12450 Washington Sheet 711,71, fcn, CO 24 i-2405. +.+v+. w ihGrntonwaterproleo •;nrn April 9, 2020 Colorado Interstate Gas Co_ PO. Box 1087 Colorado Springs, CO 80901-1087 In. r strtr�lure Department Thnrnton Water Pr 1 ct 720-577-6700 Fax. 72O.J77.,202 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline 1 Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP) The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties Thornton is developing a suppiement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances, Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process. various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the Pi/VP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time. Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John_Himyak Tf-romtonCO qav or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer �t� City of 11e Thornton Infrastructure Mnlnter7ancQ (enter '2450 iVasbirgton Strew F'orr--ron, CO 80741 -24;-5 wthi nlonwaterprctvct cam April 9, 2020 Mr Eric Reckentine North Weld County Water District P.O. Box 56 Lucerne, CO 80646-0056 Infrab-tfuCture D partm nt Thornton Water Pm;ed 2L-977-6707 ?-ax 72C-977.6207 RE: Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline / Utility Coordination Request Dear Mr Reckentine: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larimer counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USER) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the JSR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency' of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing. planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information: • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TWP. • Copies or examples of typical facility cressinglencroachment agreements. • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John. HimyakThorntonCO goo or 720-977-6264. Respectf John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer mi City of AyThornton Infrastr:ch+re Ma'nteriancJa Center 2450 Wasmmrigtor7 Street T'1'.rnlo'r. CO 80241.240 'vvww the rr'Icnwaterprojec1 corer April 9, 2020 Sinclair Pipe Line Company PQ Box 1135 100 E. Washington Sinclair, WY 82334-0185 InrrastrActore department THr3rri n YL'8tei P' ject 720-977-6700 Fax 720-7-6202 RE' Thornton Water Project TWP Water Pipeline ! Utility Coordination Request To Whom It May Concern The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding the development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include approximately 60 miles of water transmission pipeline, three pump stations, a water tank, and other necessary facilities in Weld and Larirner counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of burled 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Typically, a 50 -foot wide permanent easement and 40 -foot wide temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TVVP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the supplemental permit application. Thornton would welcome a meeting with facility operators to build our awareness of existing, planned improvements or future facilities, and to ensure that agency questions are addressed. The water pipeline alignment crosses multiple utility facilities. Please review the attached figure with respect to your utility, so that we can begin to coordinate facility crossings. Thornton is requesting the following information • Information on existing and planned facilities in close proximity to the TVVP. • Copies or examples of typical facility crossing/encroachment agreements, • General information, construction requirements, and estimated process time Thank you and for questions, to coordinate a meeting or transfer the requested information, please contact me at John.Himyak[7a ThorntonCG goy or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, ohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Local Fire Districts Cit of � Y Thornton Infrastructure rvtaintenar•,ce Center 12450 Wash ngEon Street Tnorntr rI CO 80241-24Q 'Hwy,/ tharntonwaterproject corn April 8, 2020 Fire Marshal David Puccetti Frederick -Firestone Fire Protection District P.O Box 129 Frederick, CO 80530 RE: Thornton Water Project ! Fire District Coordination Request Dear Fire Marshal Puccetti: Infrast+ucture Cue artrnent Thornton Water Protect 720-977-6700 Fax 720-977-6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TVVP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TVVP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners_ Throughthe USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 4 miles of the water pipeline alignment is fixated within the Frederic€ -Firestone Fire Protection District boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977--6264. Respectfully. ohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project .....t BERTH0UO FfREIOEPT FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE Cry Thornton aantt_ I CITY OF THORNT0N COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 S 0 0.75 1 5 Miles 1 inch = 1 97 miles ME rWP Alignment Railroad - - County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch, C� Lake/Reservoir Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries ti AMU/ bah tOtt HORTtEMN PROJE ntASA 001004 Sal PV Mull totO6401ANtESINEW teSMIOUtREACIAPtNMh7000 (t1/£RwtAPP201 tett DMStwCI % Hww t nD a AN)17/QOM ISIS PU �� City of �1�Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 12454 Washington,Street hornlon, GO90241-2465 www Ihorntonwaterpeoj?C1 tour April 8, 2020 Fire Marshal Taw Tamlin Fort Lupton Fire Protection District 1121 Denver Ave, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 RE Thornton Water Project / Fire District Coordination Request Dear Fire Marshal Tamlin: Infrastructure Department Thornton Water Prated 72C1-977-670 Fax 724-977.62{72 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline will be located within your fire district boundaries, Approximately 3 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting. please contact me at John_Himyak@ThorntonCQ.gov or 720-977-6264. dhn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project BRIGHTON FIRE RESCUE_ DISTRICT Pump Station Location r4Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 0 S 0.75 1 inch = 1.42 miles eTWP Alignment Railroad - County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir 1.5 • Mites Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries W 474Na 1►$OR`I?On ►.ORh*NN PN41CSUMO( O4A_50+ PtowitiNOIGtWWAgt;WtLQ tiSmOVTRI/1CtPEJWItoenex l*WTAV►?p?Q fRE CIS 'RICIS esx+1 LUC AUMiVP/Me 3934ft mie-city of rThornton lnirastructtrre Marntenante Canter 12450 Washington Sheet Thornton_ CO 80241-2405 www thorntonwterproject corn April 8, 2020 Fire Marshal Greg Davis Brighton Fire Rescue District 500 S. 4th Ave., 3rd Floor Brighton, CO 80601 RE: Thornton Water Project I Fire District Coordination Request Dear Fire Marshal Davis: In`rastrUetrr2' oerrartmenA ThOPiton Wa#ee ProIec! 720-977.6700 Fax: 720.877.6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP), The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TVVP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application, Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline and pump station will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 2 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Brighton Fire Rescue District boundaries within Weld County The pump station is located near the northeast intersection of Weld County Road 17 and Weld County Road 2. The site will include a pump house building, forebay, and equipment pads outside of the building. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-077-6264 Respectfully, Get n HimyaiC Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project • _ (-u tS •68TH AVt-_ Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 0 S 0 75 1 inch = 1.42 miles 15 MI IMINDTWP Alignment Railroad - County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir es Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries utast rnnille w tJOAt►suk P)O1cflriota (tina %At PSRta ttam in tales tat Air .a to.,+t•„ua,}xra..•.aa,nrp tRE ,tct�C fS ant, '•• Aa 1?t L .• • n?l J )t �l� city of 1yThornton Infrastr=ucture Ma!ntenai1ce Center 12450 Wasliirtgtan Street Thorwoo_ CO 80241-24G5 w'vw tl?afntarrwaterproject COM April 8, 2020 Chief Ty Drage Front Range Fire Rescue P.O. Box 130 Milliken, CO 80543 Infrastructure Department Thornton Water Project 720-977-6700 Fax 720-977-5202 RE: Thornton Water Project I Fire District Coordination Request Dear Chief Drage: The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations, Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and en additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline and pump station will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 13 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Front Range Fire Rescue boundaries within Weld County, The pump station is located approximately 0,5 miles east of the intersection of Weld County Road 13 and Weld County Road 50. The site will include a pump house building and equipment pads outside of the building. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Hirnyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respec Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project almilTWPAlignment Thornton ..atttt CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 LOVELAND FIRE AND RESCUE S 0 0.75 1.5 Miles 1 inch = 1.66 miles - i Pump Station Location Railroad - County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir FRONT RANGE FI RE RESCUE Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries 1iwises !•1oq);1Utt tiogT4fRtn PROS C'VASK OMDFR MSI PERM! T thCial'JA► rtfSAM tO USMOWR[ACt *Wit APP74700ittlrAPPZO?O'ft Q4!R1CTS $fln l-O'CCM3A1Qi!7O1$34Pt. Ak City of me Thornton 4rrftstructure Mainteriance Center 12450 Washingon Street Thornton CO 80241-2405 MAN thorntonwaterproiect corn April 8, 2020 Fire Inspector .eff Cogburn Platteville-Gilcrest Fire Protection District P.O. Box 407 Platteville, CO 80651 RE: Thornton Water Project / Fire District Coordination Request Dear Fire Inspector Cogburn: Infrastructure Department Thornton Water Project 720-977-6700 •Fax,720-977-6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Specia# Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County, The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TVVP where the water pipeline will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 4.5 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Platteville-Gilcrest Fire Protection District boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntoriCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Him yak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE FORT, LUPTON FIRE PROTECTION.OtST ERIN Sat Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 0 S 0 75 4 1 inch - 1 42 miles 5 Miles TWP Alignment Railroad -- County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch . I Lake/Reservoir Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries IN wile ',Ca%TON 110RTNfR,. SOJCn1ASX MNR }ti' P NU TtccctswAp{afivy' louwoo MRr?ZAK QVi'APP )QM*4Au•+APP )q)p'Mt MIRK tip DSxt• W0 AP.101/7410)11MPig A.,City< of 1Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 12450 Vllashnq:cn Scree! Thornton CO 60241-2405 www tharntenwaterprajert corn April 8, 2020 Fire Marshal Nunn Fire Protection District 487 Logan Ave. Nunn, CO 80648 RE: Thornton Water Project / Fire District Coordination Request Dear Fire Marshal: tnFrastructure Department Thc.rntun water Project 720-977-n7MQ Fax 720.-977-6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton- TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline and water tank will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 1 mile of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Nunn Fire Protection District boundaries within Weld County. The water tank is located near the southeast intersection of Weld County Road 13 and Larimer County Road 56. The site will include a 1 -million -gallon steel water tank Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Hirnyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, ohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project DOUGLAS RD PROSPECT ---- -_aglIMMIS t Itit I O 7‘ i Cry Thornton t CS tE, CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27(2020 0 S 0.75 POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY 15 Miles rr 1 inch = 1.42 miles Water Tank Location 1� ) �- NUNN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CR9O galleTWP Alignment Railroad - County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir AULTIFIR o TECTION 0ItTRICT Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries WxrM. 'TOW Oft ►rM1.*qu ►M0ACr1IArks ORDER $I$t nom r1t*,GG4WAP'ftESYet t0 uSMOUNIX MP[wv+IAPPmOO'[RthWenn tat D4TRICT$ bin -: am )0117070 »I»w► City of yhThornton ufr3struCture Ma,nterzanre Censer 12450 Washington Street Thornton, CO 9424 !-2405 www thcrntonwaterproject corn April 8, 2020 Chief Mark White Ault -Pierce Fire Department 16880 Colorado Highway 14 Ault, CO 80610 RE: Thornton Water Project / Fire District Coordination Request Dear Chief White: Infr8structure Depoitinerr; Thornton Water Project 720-977-6704 Fax 724-977-6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline wilt be located within your fire district boundaries within Weld County. Approximately 2 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Ault -Pierce Fire Department boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak@laThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfull n Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project PROSPECT a +O031 TOOTH NO (4Thprnton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 0 POUDRE FIRE AUT HORI T Y 0 75 1 inch = 1.42 miles Water Tank Location NUNN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ImillTWP Alignment Figure 1 Railroad Thornton Water Project -- County Boundary Fire District Boundaries River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir 15 ■ Miles WWel*. Meted O44 NOW *if FM .ECntMA Ora 9S1 PiRIM T.40C.tSWAPsrttSW[t0 uSMOJtMIAOW( RAC 1AFP?ORJ'PFMuir &wp7, $Af O:S?Ric t$ IS*►1wa achedY?J'fl'?JJi$WU �t� City of iy Thornton Inrrastruc'.t,re ilrtaFnleriance Center ;2450 Washington Street Thornton, CO 8024.4.24u5 www rhorntorwaterprolect corn April 8, 2020 Fire Protection Technician Jim Lynxwiler Poudre Fire Authority 102 Remington St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Thornton Water Project 1 Fire District Coordination Request Dear Mr. Lynxwiler: infrastructure Department Thbmtnn Watev Prvjec# 720-977-6700 Fax 72G-977-6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline will be located within your fire district boundaries within Weld County. Approximately 3.5 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Poudre Fire Authority boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak©ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, ohn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project \IcT4 ARDS , MI RD MOUNTAs. AS TA OR peOSPEcT Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON, CO 80244-2405 3/27/2020 *M0M 10N N0RI►tMFI PRO CMAil( ORDER. VOL PUN ttTOKPOS4JAPfa[sat to uL+cCuIRSAcuWtM*JiIfrP"x,NSF1au' IAPPM%) fRE Os$fRKfS bAtt VW AXON WWNfl3)iHPY POU0RE FIRE AUTHORITY S 0.75 1 inch = 1 42 miles Water Tank Location eillaTWP Alignment Railroad County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir 1.5 Miles NUNN FIRE PROTECTION p$TRiCT Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries ..e.. City of Ay Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 124W uVasningtan Street Thornton. CO aa241-2405 'uvww thornlonwateiprojecr corn April 8, 2020 Operations Chief Mike Blackwill Windsor Severance Fire Rescue 100 7th St, Windsor, CO 80550 RE: Thornton Water Project / Fire District Coordination Request Dear Operations Chief Blackwill: inrrastructuEe department Thornton Water Proiect 720-977 6700 Fax: 720-977-8202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that w+Il convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Larimer County to Thornton, TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Larimer and Weld Counties, Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TWP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 7 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Windsor Severance Fire Rescue boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, e;2' c --7Z hn Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project LOVELAND FIRE AND RESCUE LOVELAND RURAL 1 FIRE Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON S THORNTON, CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 0 S 0 75 1 inch = 1.42 miles eTWP Alignment Railroad -- County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch Lake/Reservoir 15 Miles Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries %•iu/Oi4$ :POMOON 4O441►4NiN PQOAChtALC otiofH ft ►fRojo tWGGt$UAP R. I3v.I 1) uVOGUtttfAc.fNMI TAPP7O?C`PtKU,tMOflt ref 8ffA1l4Ro JOUM)JJIIC?0)lt PV �t� City of vie Thornton Infrastructure Maintenance Center 12450 Washington Street ThtuTbion. CO 8Q241-240.5 www tnointonwaterprotect corn April 8, 2020 Fire Marshal Doug Saba Mountain View Fire Rescue 3561 N. Stagecoach Rd., Unit 200 Longmont, CO 80504 RE; Thornton Water Project ! Fire District Coordination Request Dear Fire Marshal Saba: Inirastructure Oeartrnent Thornton VVater Prajec! 720-977-6700 Fax' 720-977.6202 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is contacting stakeholders regarding development of the Thornton Water Project (TWP). The TWP is a domestic water pipeline delivery system that will convey Thornton's existing water rights from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Lorimer County to Thornton. TWP components include over 60 miles of a buried water transmission pipeline and other necessary facilities in Latimer and Weld Counties. Thornton is developing a supplement to the previously submitted Use by Special Review (USR) application for the TWP within unincorporated Weld County, which includes approximately 34 miles of buried 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances. Approximately 11 miles of 42 -inch water pipeline and associated appurtenances are in incorporated areas of Weld County. The TVVP appurtenances include buried fiber optic cable, various buried water pipeline structures and valve vaults including access manways, blow -off assemblies, air release vaults, and isolation valve vaults, water tank, and pump stations. Typically, a 50 -foot permanent easement for the water pipeline and an additional 40 -foot temporary easement for construction has been or is in the process of being purchased from property owners. Through the USR permit process, various agencies in the area of the TWP are likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Thornton is very open to meeting with local departments to ensure that department questions are addressed. The attached Figure 1 shows the TWP where the water pipeline will be located within your fire district boundaries. Approximately 5 miles of the water pipeline alignment is located within the Mountain View Fire Rescue boundaries within Weld County. Thank you and for questions, or to coordinate a meeting, please contact me at John.Himyak@ThorntonCO.gov or 720-977-6264. Respectfully, John Himyak Thornton Water Project Engineer Thornton Water Project Thornton CITY OF THORNTON COLORADO 12450 WASHINGTON ST THORNTON CO 80241-2405 3/27/2020 ri Knit' tmOweos, NOR rs4W*i PROJECRTAU COO U NS 1 Pi 03,,, tinGialehlAPItr$Wf (O USM O IR! IC Sin OSP f Ana 701Pf U ?A;1012?0 fS! MIT let T% SSZI, WO J UNi HM OTO f» 34 LV u FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE S 0 75 1 5 Miles 1 inch = 1 97 miles albTWP Alignment Railroad — - County Boundary River/Stream/Canal/Ditch L_ J Lake/Reservoir Figure 1 Thornton Water Project Fire District Boundaries Wildlife Agencies ERC-) ER() Resources Corp. April 17, 2020 Mr. Ty Petersburg Area 4 Wildlife Manager Colorado Parks and Wildlife 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Concurrence for a List of Special Status Species and Request for Comments Thornton Water Project — Weld County Permit Areas Dear Mr. Petersburg, u rreer 1342 Clarkson Street Fewer, (_0 00213 3[]8. R?0-118R 10▪ 15 5.• Main Avenue [[111nr.o. C0 31301 47[].472-1130 Hotchkiss • 0ea ')(32 151 South 2nd Street Hntchki,r, CC) 81414 '3/1 312 3;020 Idaho 4001 East IVl; ul Street Emmert 43 83017 2083;6H; /634 The city of Thornton (Thornton) is proposing to construct the Thornton Water Project (TWP), a domestic water transmission project in Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. Thornton is planning to submit a Weld County Use by Special Review permit application in 2020 for the TWP in Weld County. The TWP in Weld County along with an additional study area (TWP study buffer) was assessed for natural resources. As part of the planning process, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO), on behalf of Thornton, is requesting concurrence from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) on the Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) that may occur within the TWP study buffer, or that could be affected by the proposed TWP within the TWP study buffer. ERO also requests that CPW provide any comments or concerns regarding the TWP at this early stage in the planning process. Thornton and ERO have met with CPW to discuss Segment D (currently under construction in Windsor and Johnstown) and would appreciate continued communication on the TWP and each segment as they progress through design and construction. Through the land use permit process, CPW is likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on these permit applications. Below is a description of the TWP and the list of species ERO has identified that could occur in the study buffer or could be impacted by the TWP. The list will be used to aid in the development of the final alignment and to reduce or eliminate natural resource concerns. Project Location The TWP is proposed to be built in Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado (Figure 1). The TWP route begins north of Fort Collins in unincorporated Larimer County, travels east and crosses Interstate 25 to the Larimer/Weld County line, and then travels southeast to Thornton in Adams County. The TWP route within Weld County begins northeast of Fort Collins at the Larimer/Weld County line, east of the intersection of County Road 13 and Weld County Road 92, and extends south to the Adams County line at Weld County Road 2. A majority of the TWP study buffer is located along municipal and county roads with upland vegetation characterizing a majority of the TWP study buffer (Figure 1). Sections of the TWP study buffer occur within undeveloped grasslands, agricultural fields, housing subdivisions, and along ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Consultants n Natural RE -sou rt33 :lnr ISa Er•,(1.3.3l rile nt Mr. Ty Petersburg Colorado Parks and Wildlife Page 2 April 17, 2020 Project Description As described above, Thornton is proposing to construct a domestic water transmission project through Weld County, Colorado. The entire proposed route is shown on Figure 1. The TWP study buffer is an average of 0.20 mile wide to accommodate the outcomes of easement negotiations with individual landowners and potential engineering constraints and approximately 48 miles long. The final alignment would include a 50 -foot permanent easement and a 40 -foot temporary construction easement within the TWP study buffer. Thornton is proposing to use trenchless construction methods to cross jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and suitable habitat for federally threatened and endangered species. Natural Resources Assessment ERO completed a natural resources assessment of the TWP study buffer to support the major land use permits Thornton is seeking from Weld County and to aid in the future development of the final alignment for the pipeline by detailing the natural resources found within the TWP study buffer. . ERO assessed the TWP study buffer for potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S., broad vegetation communities, federal and state threatened and endangered species, and migratory birds. ERO conducted surveys within the TWP study buffer in May and July 2016; August, September, and December 2017; January 2018; April 2019; and March 2020 (2016 through 2020 site visits) adjacent to public roads, on Thornton - owned property, or where access had been granted. ERO assessed natural resources via aerial imagery for areas that were inaccessible. Site Conditions Six perennial streams (Big Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, St. Vrain Creek, Little Thompson River, Big Thompson River, and Cache la Poudre River); several canals, ditches, and roadside swales; and four reservoirs and several ponds occur within the TWP study buffer. During the 2016 through 2020 site visits, ERO mapped broad vegetation communities within the TWP study buffer. ERO identified the dominant species and grouped similar communities into vegetation cover types based on factors such as dominance by native or introduced species, moisture regime, and dominant growth type (trees, shrubs, or grasses). Based on the 2016 through 2020 site visits and Google Earth imagery, ERO identified six broad vegetation communities within the TWP study buffer, as described below. Mixed Upland The Mixed Upland community occurs primarily in historically undisturbed uplands in the TWP study buffer. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) dominate this community. Other common species include needle-and-threadgrass (Hesperostipa comata), fringed sage (Artemesia frigida), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum). Some three -leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata), soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericamerica nauseosa), and other shrubs are scattered throughout this community. Noxious weeds such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) also occur within this vegetation community type. Mixed Uplands in the TWP study buffer are of moderate quality because they have been grazed in the past and contain some weeds. Mr. Ty Petersburg Colorado Parks and Wildlife Page 3 April 17, 2020 Nonnative Upland The Nonnative Upland community occurs throughout the TWP study buffer and includes areas that have been historically disturbed by heavy grazing, tilling, and hay production. In many cases, introduced species and pasture grasses dominate the community. The nonnative upland community is dominated by species such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and kochia (Bassia scoparia), which predominantly occur along roadsides and other disturbed areas throughout the TWP study buffer. Noxious weed species such as diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and cheatgrass also occur within this vegetation community type. Riparian The Riparian community includes moist areas along the larger tributaries and rivers in the TWP study buffer. Some areas mapped remotely as riparian may also include potential wetlands (see Wetlands discussion below). Depending on the site, plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), crack willow (Salix fragilis), and peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides) trees form the overstory with a shrub layer of chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), American plum (Prunus americana), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalls), Woods' rose (Rosa woodsii), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua). The noxious weed tree, Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), is common in this cover type. Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass dominate the understory. Wetlands Wetlands occur as fringes or wide benches along drainages, roadside swales, and as isolated depressions throughout the TWP study buffer. Vegetation within the wetlands is dominated by plains cottonwood, sandbar willow (Salix interior), narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundianacea). Agricultural Lands Tilled and managed agricultural lands are common throughout the TWP study buffer. Agricultural lands are characterized by crops such as alfalfa, corn, small grains, and soy, as well as fallow ground and disturbed areas associated with agriculture. Developed/Disturbed Areas Developed/disturbed areas occur throughout the TWP study buffer. Developed/disturbed areas have received heavy human use, including livestock concentration areas, buildings, and surrounding disturbed areas, and roads, trails, and other developed areas. Developed/disturbed areas in the TWP study buffer often contain bare ground or, if vegetation is present, are dominated by annual and noxious weed species such as kochia, cheatgrass, curly dock (Rumex crispus), biennial thistles, and diffuse knapweed. Tier 1 Species ERO assessed the TWP study buffer for potential habitat for Tier 1 SGCN species. Tier 1 species are those species that are the highest conservation priority in the state. The TWP study buffer contains suitable or potentially suitable habitat for several Tier 1 species (Table 1). A letter has been submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting concurrence of potential federally listed species that may occur within the TWP study buffer. Mr. Ty Petersburg Colorado Parks and Wildlife Page 4 April 17, 2020 Table 1. Tier 1 species potentially found in the TWP study buffer or with potential to be affected by the TWP in the TWP study buffer. Common Name Scientific Name State Status' Habitat Suitable Habitat Present Amphibians and Reptiles Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens SC, Tier 1 Wetlands, streams, beaver ponds, stock ponds, wet meadows, and floodplains; typically, clear streams with sandy soils Yes —wetlands and streams in the TWP study buffer Mammals Black -footed ferret Mustela nigripes SE, Tier 1 Grasslands or shrublands that support prairie dogs; eastern plains, mountain parks, and western valleys of Colorado No Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Tier 1 Coniferous forest and mixed pine woodland No Little brown myotis Myotis lucifigus Tier 1 Woodlands, caves, and in or under buildings and bridges in urban areas Yes — wooded riparian areas along the larger tributaries and rivers in the TWP study buffer Olive -backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus Tier 1 Arid and semiarid upland grasslands and prairies that contain loose soils Yes — undisturbed areas of mixed upland habitat within the TWP study buffer Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei FT, ST, Tier 1 Shrub riparian/wet meadows Yes —wetlands and streams within the TWP study buffer Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Tier 1 Ponderosa pine, pinon-juniper woodland, and desert shrub; prefer areas with cliffs and water No Townsend's big- eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens SC, Tier 1 Mines, caves, and large rock cavities No Birds Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia ST, Tier 1 Shortgrass prairie with prairie dog colonies Yes — prairie dog burrows located in the TWP study buffer Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Tier 1 Tundra, pine forests, sagebrush, grasslands, and agricultural land Yes —grasslands and agricultural fields in the TWP study buffer Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida SC, Tier 1 Wetlands and shallow marshes, mudflats, moist meadows, and agricultural land Yes — wetlands and agricultural land in the TWP study buffer Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SC, Tier 1 Open, flat tablelands and shortgrass prairie vegetation less than 6 inches high; breeds in areas with about 30 percent bare ground, including grazed grasslands, fallow fields, and prairie dog towns Unlikely —very little suitable habitat for mountain plovers occurs in the TWP study buffer; plovers are vulnerable to human and vehicle disturbance Fish Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni ST, Tier 1 Grassland streams and small ponds; cooler flowing waters or pools with sand and gravel substrate with aquatic vegetation Potentially — known to occur in St. Vrain Creek, Poudre River, and South Platte River Common shiner Luxilus cornutus ST, Tier 1 Cool clear streams with moderate gradient, gravelly bottoms, and shady areas Potentially — known to occur in cool transitional zone streams in the South Platte River Basin Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias ST, Tier 1 Cold, clear, gravelly headwater streams and mountain lakes in the South Platte and Arkansas River Basins No Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Tier 1 Shallow clear water with backwaters and pools Potentially— known to occur in streams and tributaries of the South Platte River Mr. Ty Petersburg Colorado Parks and Wildlife Page 5 April 17, 2020 Common Name Scientific Name State Status' Habitat Suitable Habitat Present Stonecat Noturus flavus SC, Tier 1 Fast water riffles and runs of streams with sand -gravel bottoms; often under rocks and debris Potentially — known to occur in St. Vrain Creek near Longmont, Colorado Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis SE, Tier 1 Gravel and rubble riffles and runs of clear to turbid creeks and small to medium rivers Potentially— known to occur in St. Vrain Creek *SE = State Endangered Species; ST = State Threatened Species; SC = State Species of Concern; FT = Federally Threatened Species. Source: CPW 2015, 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Woodling 1985. Other Wildlife As part of the natural resources assessment, ERO identified other wildlife that may occur within the TWP study buffer or may be impacted by the TWP, including Tier 2 species. Species that have the potential to occur in the TWP study buffer are listed in Table 2. Table 2. Potential wildlife occurring in the TWP study buffer. Common Name Scientific Name Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Black -tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Black -necked stilt Nimantopus mexicanus Bull snake Pituophis catenifer Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus spp. Coyote Canis latrans Deer mouse Peromyscus manicufatus Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Great Plains toad Anaxyrus cognates Ground squirrel lctidomys tridecemlineatus; Xerospermophilus spilosoma Iowa darter Etheostoma exile Long -billed curlew Numenius americanus Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Peregrine falcon Falco peregrunus gnatum Plains pocket gopher Geomys bursorius Prairie vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Raccoon Procyon lotor Red fox Vulpes vulpes Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis River otter Lontra canadensis Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Swift fox Vulpes velox Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Woodhouse's toad Anaxyrus woodhousii Conclusion On behalf of Thornton, ERO requests concurrence from CPW on the lists provided above for special status species, migratory birds, and other wildlife that may occur within the TWP study buffer from the Larimer/Weld County line south to the Weld/Adams County line east of Interstate 25 or that could be impacted by the TWP. ERO also requests that CPW provide any comments or concerns regarding additional species or requirements that may be Mr. Ty Petersburg Colorado Parks and Wildlife Page 6 April 17, 2020 pertinent to the TWP. Thornton and ERO would also be glad to meet with CPW to discuss the TWP and any comments or concerns regarding the project. Thornton plans to develop measures to avoid and minimize impacts on raptors and other migratory birds during project construction and will coordinate with CPW before and during construction on the most effective means to minimize effects on raptors and other migratory birds. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please call me at (303) 830- 1188. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, 1)10,4 /aei5L Moneka Worah Natural Resource Specialist/Principal cc: John Himyak — City of Thornton Jody Henry —Jacobs, Inc. Attachment: Figure 1 References Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2015. State Wildlife Action Plan: A Strategy for Conserving Wildlife in Colorado. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2019. CPW Wildlife Shapefile Download. From: Species Activity Mapping (SAM). Redlands, CA: ESRI. http://www.a rcgis.com/home/grou p.htm l?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Pa rks%20an d%20W i Id life%20-%20Species%20Activity%20Data. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2020a. Species Profiles. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2020b. Colorado listing of endangered, threatened and wildlife species of special concern. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC- ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2020c. Maps Library. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/Maps.aspx/. Last accessed March 2, 2020. Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/20824.pdf. June. "HE LA 0 of E O , t t 0 z 0 N ‘Nri fates Park 0 0 N s Nor setooth t�esearwit Loveland BOULDER COUNTY VANE BRAND AIRPOR T1 COLORADO .Longmont .Broom eld • ac#mtrnc!Ls arm G REEL EY WELD CO +AIRPORT /Hudson righton, Thornton Water Treatment Plant r:01/E4 IN i L A'Rn' R7 • Wes Brown Water Treatment Plant Thornton Water Project Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado Weld County TWP Study Buffer Larimer County TWP Study Buffer Adams County TWP Study Buffer Figure 1 Vicinity Map Prepared for: City of Thornton File: 05241 Figure 1 Agency Letter.mxd [dlH) April 16, 2020 ERC) EEO Resources Coro. Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright C 2016 FSRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. ERQ ER() Resources Corp. April 17, 2020 Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Field Office Denver Federal Center (MS 65412) PO Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225 Re: Concurrence for a List of Federally Listed Species and Request for Comments Thornton Water Project — Weld County Permit Areas Dear Mr. DeBerry, The city of Thornton (Thornton) is proposing to construct the Thornton Water Project (TWP), a domestic water transmission project in Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. Thornton is planning to submit a Weld County Use by Special Review (USR) permit application in 2020 for the TWP in Weld County. The TWP in Weld County along with an additional study area (TWP study buffer) was assessed for natural resources. As part of the planning process, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO), on behalf of Thornton, is requesting concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the lists of special status species that may occur within the TWP study buffer or that could be affected by the TWP. ERO also requests that the Service provide any initial comments or concerns regarding the TWP at this early stage in the planning process. Below is a description of the TWP and the lists of species ERO has identified. Peririr 1342 Clarkson St. Penner, CO 00210 ([01 30-1183 1015 Avenue Qur. nr.c. 00 31301 (([1 412-1136 Hotrhkiil P. (3. 30,.. '3.32 151 5o'„rh 2 It Hnrchkis', 0O 81414 9/03/23020 Id,.iho 4O01 East ivlain Street Emmett, III 33(117 2083)33/634 Thornton is proposing to construct the TWP using trenchless construction methods to cross jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and suitable habitat for federally threatened and endangered species. Based on this approach, it is anticipated that the TWP would not require any federal approvals such as a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit or consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The TWP does not involve any federal funding and it will not cross federally owned lands. Thornton has been coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding the TWP and plans to submit an approved jurisdictional determination request to the Corps to determine which areas in the TWP study buffer are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Thornton also plans to submit a habitat assessment to the Service when the final alignment has been determined to confirm the boundaries of potential habitat identified within the alignment and to confirm the TWP would have no effect on Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's; Zapus hudsonius preblel) or its habitat. Because no federal action is anticipated, formal consultation regarding federally listed species affected by depletions to the South Platte River would not be required. It should be noted, however, that Thornton is a member of the South Platte Water Related Activities Program. CCn111 (artts'n Natural fie5Cr3IC'25 and tIn En•olre lril rI .: Vdw.er or C U rC H.S. C CI -0 Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page 2 Apri117, 2020 Thornton is currently developing land use permit applications for the TWP, and no final design for the majority of the TWP alignment has been completed, with the exception of one segment (Segment D) currently under construction in Windsor and Johnstown. Through the land use permit process, the Service is likely to be contacted as a "Referral Agency" of Weld County to provide review and comment on the permit application. Project Location The TWP is proposed to be built in Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado (Figure 1). The TWP route begins north of Fort Collins in unincorporated Larimer County, travels east and crosses Interstate 25 to the Larimer/Weld County line, and then travels southeast to Thornton in Adams County. The TWP route within Weld County begins northeast of Fort Collins at the Larimer/Weld County line, east of the intersection of County Road 13 and Weld County Road 92, and extends south to the Adams County line at Weld County Road 2. A majority of the TWP study buffer is located along municipal and county roads with upland vegetation characterizing a majority of the TWP study buffer (Figure 1). Sections of the TWP study buffer occur within undeveloped grasslands, agricultural fields, housing subdivisions, and along ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Project Description As described above, Thornton is proposing to construct a domestic water transmission project through Weld County, Colorado. The entire proposed route is shown on Figure 1. The TWP study buffer is an average of 0.20 mile wide to accommodate the outcomes of easement negotiations with individual landowners and potential engineering constraints and approximately 48 miles long. The final alignment would include a 50 -foot permanent easement and a 40 -foot temporary construction easement within the TWP study buffer. Thornton is proposing to use trenchless construction methods to cross jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and suitable habitat for federally threatened and endangered species. Methods ERO completed a natural resources assessment of the TWP study buffer to support the major land use permits Thornton is seeking from Weld County and to aid in the future development of the final alignment for the pipeline by detailing the natural resources found within the TWP study buffer. ERO assessed the TWP study buffer for potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S., broad vegetation communities, federal and state threatened and endangered species, and migratory birds. ERO conducted surveys within the TWP study buffer in May and July 2016; August, September, and December 2017; January 2018; April 2019; and March 2020 (2016 through 2020 site visits) adjacent to public roads, on Thornton - owned property, or where access had been granted. ERO assessed natural resources via aerial imagery for areas that were inaccessible. Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ERO assessed the TWP study buffer for potential habitat for federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species protected under the ESA. The Service lists several threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in Weld County, or with the potential to be affected by projects in Weld County (Table 1). ERO did not identify any critical habitat for any federally listed species within the TWP study buffer during the 2016 through 2020 site visits. Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Table 1. Federal and state threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Weld County or potentially affected by projects in Weld County. Page 3 Apri117, 2020 Common Name Scientific Name Status" Habitat Suitable Habitat Present Mammals Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) Zapus hudsonius preblei FT, ST Shrub riparian/wet meadows Yes Birds Interior least tern** Sterna antillarum athalassos FE, SE Sandy/pebble beaches on lakes, reservoirs, and rivers No Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis FT, ST Closed canopy forests in steep canyons No Piping plover" Charadrius melodus FT, ST Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars No Whooping crane" Grus americana FE, SE Mudflats around reservoirs and in agricultural areas No Fish Pallid sturgeon" Scaphirhynchus albus FE Large, turbid, free -flowing rivers with a strong current and gravel or sandy substrate No Plants Ute ladies' -tresses orchid (ULTO) Spiranthes diluvialis FT Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 7,800 feet in elevation Yes Western prairie fringed orchid— Platanthera praeclara FT Moist to wet prairies and meadows No "FE = Federally Endangered Species; FT = Federally Threatened Species; SE = State Endangered Species; ST = State Threatened Species. "Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other counties or states. Source: Service 2020; Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2020. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Potential Habitat None of the drainages that occur in the TWP study buffer have been identified by the Service as areas essential to the recovery of Preble's (75 Federal Register 78429, December 15, 2010). Preble's is known to occur in two drainages that cross the TWP study buffer: the Little Thompson River and the Big Thompson River. Preble's have been captured twice along the Little Thompson River 0.48 river mile downstream and 1.38 river miles downstream from the point where the TWP study buffer crosses the Little Thompson River (ERO 2002a, 2002b). Field reviews indicate that this portion of the Little Thompson River provides potentially suitable Preble's habitat in the riparian corridor along the drainage. As such, this area is considered occupied habitat. Preble's has also been captured along the Big Thompson River 4.16 river miles upstream from the point where the TWP study buffer crosses the Big Thompson River (Peterson 2001). Field reviews indicate that the section of the Big Thompson River where the TWP study buffer crosses provides low -quality Preble's habitat, with limited shrub cover and heavy human disturbance present. Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page 4 Apri117, 2020 All other potential wetlands, riparian habitat, and ditches found in the TWP study buffer would also be considered potential Preble's habitat; however, these areas are not suitable habitat or are unlikely to support a population of Preble's because they (1) are largely dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia), (2) are isolated from known Preble's populations, (3) are within areas previously surveyed or assessed for Preble's habitat with no Preble's or Preble's habitat found, or (4) do not contain adequate shrub cover to be considered suitable habitat. This includes St. Vrain Creek and the Poudre River where suitable habitat is present, but previous surveys and evaluations in or adjacent to the TWP study buffer have not found Preble's or Preble's habitat. Impacts No impacts on Preble's or its habitat are anticipated to occur from the TWP. Although wetland and riparian habitat along the Little Thompson River and Big Thompson River in the TWP study buffer provides potentially suitable Preble's habitat, these drainages and the adjacent wetland and riparian habitat would be crossed using trenchless construction methods. Using trenchless construction methods in areas with suitable Preble's habitat would eliminate impacts on Preble's habitat. A site assessment has been completed along the Little Thompson River and would be completed along the Big Thompson River to determine the boundaries of potential or suitable habitat for Preble's to confirm that construction would not occur in those areas. A habitat assessment was submitted to the Service for the crossing at the Little Thompson River and Poudre River, and the Service confirmed that the project would have no effect on Preble's (Service 2019). A habitat assessment will be submitted to the Service when the final alignment has been determined at the Big Thompson River to confirm the boundaries of potential habitat identified within the alignment and to confirm that the TWP would have no effect on Preble's or its habitat. Ute Ladies' -Tresses Orchid Potential Habitat Because the TWP study buffer falls within survey guidelines for ULTO, ERO assessed the TWP study buffer for potential ULTO habitat. Big Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, St. Vrain Creek, the Little Thompson River, the Big Thompson River, and the Poudre River fall within ULTO survey guidelines as potential habitat because they are perennial tributaries to the South Platte River in Weld County. In addition, the Larimer and Weld Canal falls within survey guidelines as potential habitat because ULTO is known to occur along perennial ditches. The potential wetlands abutting or adjacent to St. Vrain Creek, the Big Thompson River, and the Poudre River are potential suitable ULTO habitat. Wetlands along Little Dry Creek and the Little Thompson River are too densely vegetated to allow the establishment of the generally shade -intolerant ULTO. Big Dry Creek and the Larimer and Weld Canal are incised channels with no wetland or wet meadow habitat suitable for ULTO. The remaining potential wetlands in the TWP study buffer do not fall within ULTO survey guidelines because they do not occur along perennial drainages. In addition, most of the wetlands in the TWP study buffer do not contain the sparsely vegetated pockets of species such as redtop (Agrostis gigantea) or Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) where ULTO is typically found; most of the wetlands contain dense cattails, sandbar willows (Salix exigua), or reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page 5 Apri117, 2020 Impacts No impacts on ULTO would occur from the TWP. A site assessment would be completed along the drainages discussed above to determine the boundaries of potential ULTO habitat. Trenchless construction methods anticipated to be used in the construction of the TWP would eliminate impacts on drainages that are considered jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. or contain potential habitat for ULTO. A habitat assessment would be submitted to the Service prior to construction to confirm that the TWP would have no effect on ULTO. Other Sensitive Species In addition to species listed as threatened or endangered, ERO assessed the study buffer for potential habitat and the presence of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and active nests, are protected under the MBTA. Migratory bird habitat typically includes trees and shrubs, but upland grasslands also are used for nesting. A total of 18 raptor nests were identified in and near the TWP study buffer, 9 of which occur in the TWP study buffer and 9 of which occur near the TWP study buffer. Three of these nests are known bald eagle nest sites. The other nests are occupied by red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni), or unknown raptors. CPW recommends the following buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for human activities for active raptor nests: %2 -mile radius of active bald eagle nests from October 15 through July 31, %3 -mile radius of active red-tailed hawk nests from February 15 through July 15, and %-mile radius of active Swainson's hawk nests from April 1 through July 15 (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2008). These buffers overlap the TWP study buffer. No migratory bird nests were observed in the TWP study buffer during the 2016 through 2020 site visits; however, suitable nesting habitat is present throughout the TWP study buffer. Ground -nesting and other birds could potentially nest in the grasslands and trees in and near the study area. The cattails and other wetland/riparian vegetation along the study area offer potential habitat for a variety of songbirds. Table 2 is a list of bird species of conservation concern (Service 2020) and other migratory bird species potentially found within the TWP study buffer. Thornton plans to develop measures to avoid or minimize impacts on raptors and other migratory birds during TWP construction and will be coordinating with the CPW Area 4 wildlife manager prior to and during construction on the most effective means to minimize effects on raptors and other migratory birds. Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Table 2. Migratory birds potentially found within the TWP study buffer. Page 6 Apri117, 2020 Common Name Scientific Name Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Cassin's sparrow Aimophila cassinii Chestnut -collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Long -billed curlew Numenius americanus Mccown's longspur Calcarius mccownii Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Source: Service 2020 Conclusions On behalf of Thornton, ERO requests concurrence from the Service on the lists provided above for potential federally listed species and migratory birds that may occur within the TWP study buffer or could be impacted by the project. ERO also requests the Service provide any comments or concerns regarding the TWP at this early stage in the planning process. Thornton and ERO would also be glad to meet with the Service to discuss the project. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please call me at (303) 830- 1188. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, 7144, urzciL__ Moneka Worah Natural Resource Specialist cc: John Himyak — City of Thornton Jody Henry —Jacobs, Inc. Attachment: Figure 1 References Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado Raptor Nests. February. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2020. Threatened and Endangered List. https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2002a. Trapping survey results submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Riverbend Estes along Little Thompson River in Weld County. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2002b. Trapping survey results submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service south of Johnstown along Little Thompson River in Weld County. Peterson, J. 2001. Trapping survey results submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Stanford RE Property at Interstate -25 along Big Thompson River in Larimer County. Mr. Drue DeBerry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page 7 Apri117, 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2019. Concurrence letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to (Drue DeBerry) to ERO Resources Corporation (Moneka Worah) regarding impacts on threatened and endangered species from the Thornton Water Project. TAILS: 06E24000 -2019 -TA -0202. April 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2020. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species and Migratory Birds. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/chooseLocation!prepare.action. x E u V u LL 3140 In 0 0 N 0 in 0 s F- f:stes Park 0 0 N ENT COL LIN'S LOiELA►? ' MUNI VANCE BRAND AIRPORT1 COLORADO •Longmont) lattevill 8? ► ,Fin stone 'Fre� ierick Dacorio .Broorn. 1 eld Pei? I /nctrrlirna'-ara righton,, G REFi. EY WELD CO ettPORT Hudson Thornton Water Treatment Plant "'1;R4 IN' L AIRPOR Wes Brown Water Treatment Plant Thornton Water Project Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado Weld County TWP Study Buffer Larimer County TWP Study Buffer Adams County TWP Study Buffer Figure 1 Vicinity Map Prepared for: City of Thornton File: 05241 Figure 1 Agency Letter.mxd [dlHj April 16, 2020 ERQ ENO Resources Coro. Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright C 2016 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved, Appendix C Best Management Practices Example descriptions of common construction BMPs that could be used during construction are provided for reference purposes below. These lists are not all inclusive. Items listed below, and/or other construction BMPs, will be selected as appropriate based on site -specific condition. TABLE APPENDIX C.1 Example Structural Control Measures SWMP(s) may include these and/or other construction BMPs Possible Control Measure Potential Location(s) Description of Control Measure Silt Fencing Wattles Straw Bales Erosion Control Blankets Along the perimeter of the excavation sites, corridor, and disturbed areas. Along the downhill perimeter of the disturbed sites. Installed around areas requiring protection, such as wetlands, to form a temporary containment. In areas requiring protection of exposed soil and/or additional stabilization. Inlet Protection Around inlets to the storm sewer system. Earth Dikes/ Berms Check Dams In areas where stormwater flow needs to be diverted around a potential contaminant source. Typically where the grade change is more than 2 percent. Vehicle Tracking At entrances and exits into and Control out of the construction site. Temporary Swales In low areas and at site boundaries, as appropriate. Protects streams or wetland areas, reduces sediment transport, and keeps sediment onsite. Silt fencing consists of posts with filter fabric stretched across the posts. The bottom end of the fence is vertically trenched and covered with backfill. This prevents water from passing by the fence without being filtered. The fabric allows for the water to pass offsite while retaining the sediment onsite. Used to form a barrier or redirect water, and made of straw. Wattles work much like silt fencing and may be used instead of silt fencing. Used to form a barrier or redirect water. Straw bales are often used in ditch check dams or as inlet protection rather than linear BMPs. The bales impede stormwater flow. Unlike silt fence, straw bales do not allow water to flow through freely, thus they are used where detention, not just filtration, is necessary. Protects disturbed soil areas to minimize erosion and soil transport. Traps sediment with filtering material placed around an inlet to a receiving stream. It can be composed of gravel, stone with a wire mesh filter, concrete blocks and gravel, or straw bales. Diverts stormwater flow around or away from areas where soils are disturbed or stockpiled, or the location of potential contaminants, to minimize contact of the stormwater with those pollutant sources of concern. Slows the speed of the flow. A check dam is a small, temporary dam constructed across a drainage ditch or channel. The reduced runoff speed may result in less erosion and gullying in the channel and allow the sediment to settle out. The check dams can be built with materials such as straw bales, rock, timber, or other material that may retain/slow water flow. Reduces tracking of soil off the site. Entrance and exit points are constructed of a riprap layer on top of filter fabric. The intent is for the mud and sediments on vehicle tires to adhere to the rough surface of the rocks/cobbles. Provides a preferential pathway for water flow to prevent erosion and provide a location for accumulation of sediment and debris. TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-1 TABLE APPENDIX C.1 Example Structural Control Measures 5WMP(s) may include these and/or other construction BMPs Possible Control Measure Potential Location(s) Description of Control Measure Concrete Washout In Contractor Staging Area or other approved location. Provides a designated location and containment to washout concrete trucks. Washout areas are depressed impoundments or fabricated structures. Water used to wash out concrete trucks is contained within the depressed area. The wash water usually has a high pH, which, if released, can affect the quality of runoff. The wash water may be pumped out of the depressed area for proper disposal off -site. Hardened concrete is also periodically removed and disposed of properly. Limit Number of Designated construction site Reduces tracking of soil off site. Typically implemented with Entrances/Exits entrances/exits. vehicle tracking control. TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-2 TABLE APPENDIX C.2 Example Stabilization Control Measures SWMP(s) may include these and/or other stabilization practices. Possible Control Measure Potential Location(s) Description of Stabilization Practice Temporary Seeding Permanent Seeding Sod Stabilization Mulching Vegetative Buffer Strips Furrow -Contour Side Hill Slopes Geotextiles On appropriate disturbed areas if construction is complete or suspended for an extended period of time, but prior to the entire site being permanently reseeded. On appropriate disturbed areas once construction is complete. On appropriate areas where rapid stabilization and protection of disturbed ground surface is desirable and/or where it will be difficult to reseed the area. On slopes steeper than 2:1 or on areas that have been seeded. As appropriate and where feasible, retain or install between large areas of disturbed soil or pavements. On side hill slopes of exposed soil. On appropriate disturbed areas or slopes. Provides stabilization of the soil and reduces erosion. Provides stabilization of the soil and reduces erosion. Provides stabilization of the soil and reduces erosion and protects water quality. Provides soil stabilization or erosion control where materials such as grass wood chips, hay, etc. are placed on the soil surface to protect disturbed soil areas and/or establish seeded areas. Intercepts and slows sheet flow moving across disturbed or paved areas. Improves water quality, reduces erosion potential, and assists in retaining sediment onsite. Minimizes wind and water erosion, provides a microclimate of wind protection for new plants, and helps conserve precipitation for use in growth of new seed, which reduces sediment erosion. Provides coverage and stabilization of disturbed soils and slopes to reduce erosion potential. TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-3 TABLE APPENDIX C.3 Example Materials Handling Control Measures for Construction Sites SWMP(s) may include these or other materials handling control measures. Possible Control Measure Description of Control Measure Good Housekeeping Provision of Trash Receptacles Trash Removal Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) Materials Inventory Materials Storage Vehicle Fueling and Maintenance Containment Implement general good housekeeping at the construction site. Keep the site free, as much as practicable, from trash, spilled fuels or oils, and miscellaneous construction debris Provide trash receptacles (i.e., dumpsters or garbage cans) for daily domestic -type trash and garbage. Use sturdy receptacles placed in areas where they are unlikely to be knocked or blown over. Empty receptacles on a regular basis. Remove domestic -type garbage from trash receptacles, construction or materials packaging, and other general trash and debris from the site on a regular basis. Make SDSs available for review and use for substances used or stored on the construction site. Maintain an inventory of materials stored onsite Provide proper storage and containment for chemicals, fuels, oil, and any other products requiring storage/containment. Limit areas where fueling and maintenance occur, and perform away from storm inlets and waterways. Provide spill kits and clean up/dispose of the spill and cleanup materials properly. Prepare a spill control and secondary containment plan for fuel storage. TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-4 TABLE APPENDIX CA Example BMP Maintenance Guidelines SWMP(s) may reference/include these and/or other inspection and maintenance guidelines. SILT FENCE Is the fence damaged, collapsed, un-entrenched, or ineffective? Has sediment been removed from behind the fence? Is the silt fence properly positioned? STRAW BALE BARRIER Are the straw bales damaged, ineffective, or un-entrenched? Has sediment been removed from behind the bales? Are the bales installed and positioned correctly? EROSION CONTROL BLANKET Is fabric damaged, loose, or in need of repair? INLET PROTECTION Is the inlet protection damaged, ineffective, or in need of repair? Has sediment been removed? EARTH DIKES/BERMS Are dikes or berms in good condition, without gaps or damaged areas? Are dikes or berms installed in areas of soil stockpiles? CHECK DAM Has accumulated sediment and debris been removed from behind the dam? Have the removed materials been disposed of properly? TEMPORARY SWALES Has any sediment or debris been deposited within the swales? Have the slopes of the swale eroded or has damage occurred to the lining? SURFACE ROUGHENING Are there any vehicle tracks evident on roughened slopes? Is there any evidence of erosion? VEHICLE TRACKING AT ENTRANCE/EXITS Is the gravel surface clogged with mud or sediment? Is the gravel surface sinking into the ground? Has sediment been tracked onto public roads; if so, has it been cleaned up? CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE Is structure more than two-thirds full? Is the structure performing properly? Is liner in adequate condition? PERMANENT SEEDING Are the seedbeds protected by mulch? Has any erosion occurred in the seeded area? Is there any evidence of vehicle tracking on seeded areas? TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-5 TABLE APPENDIX CA Example BMP Maintenance Guidelines SWMP(s) may reference/include these and/or other inspection and maintenance guidelines. SOD STABILIZATION Is sod properly installed? Are there gaps or areas of exposed soil between sod sheets? Is sod stressed or dead? MULCHING Is mulch distributed uniformly on all disturbed areas? Is there any evidence of mulch being blown or washed away? Has the mulched area been seeded? VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS Are vegetative buffer strips installed or maintained? Are areas of vegetative buffer strips appropriately protected or designated to minimize damage? Are vegetative buffer strips covered or filled with debris or sediment? FURROW CONTOURING Is furrow contouring implemented on final slopes, as practicable? Is erosion visible cross -cutting furrow contours? GEOTEXTILES Is fabric damaged, loose, or in need of repair? TABLE APPENDIX C.5 Example Groundwater BMPs Possible Control Measure Description of Control Measure Trench Plug Mitigates a decline in groundwater levels due to draining of groundwater through the pipeline bedding material. Install periodically along and perpendicular to the pipeline at locations determined by designer. Draining Mechanism Mitigates groundwater rising due to pipeline installation. Bedding Allows for increased water flow through the pipe zone to account for the impervious area caused by the pipe. Groundwater Disposal Disposal in accordance with CDPHE regulations and the requirements of the construction dewatering permits. Temporary retention ponds, land application, and routing to storm drains are options for groundwater disposal. Reduction in Impervious Materials Minimizes impervious materials to maximize groundwater recharge TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-6 TABLE APPENDIX C.6 Example Other Areas or Procedures BMPs Possible Control Measure Description of Control Measure Bentonite Containment/Disposal Includes proper pit containment and removal/disposal once operations are complete or as necessary. Bentonite associated with trenchless installation methods may present a potential site pollutant. Appropriate Backfill Technique Minimizes the effects of subsurface drainage. BMPs such as appropriate trench materials, compaction techniques, and proper compaction with the correct equipment can be utilized. Street Sweeping Reduces the potential of sediment transport and tracking. Sweeping operations involve scraping and/or sweeping large quantities of sediment from pavement, via hand or mechanical means, to remove as much deposited sediment as possible. Streets within and immediately surrounding a construction site would be cleaned of earth material when sediment has been deposited on the roadway and is being tracked off site. Scraped or swept material would not be deposited in the storm sewer. Sweeping and vacuuming may not be effective when soil is wet or muddy. TWP USR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX C MPS APPENDIX C-7 Appendix D Soils Reports USDA United States r lam Department of Agriculture \RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado; Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part; and Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Segment E January 12, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portalfnres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://vvww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/contactusi? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 6 Soil Map 9 Soil Map 10 Legend 11 Map Unit Legend 13 Map Unit Descriptions 14 Larimer County Area, Colorado 17 5—Aquepts, loamy 17 7 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 18 8 —Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 19 22 —Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope 21 26 Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 22 53 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 23 60—Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent slopes 25 71 Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 26 77 —Otero sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 27 78 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 28 79 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 30 80 —Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent slopes 31 107—Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 33 108 Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 34 136 —Water 35 Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part 36 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 36 47 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 37 65 —Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 38 67 Thedalund-Keota loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes 40 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 42 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 42 5 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 43 24 —Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 45 31 —Kim loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 46 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 47 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 48 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 49 38 Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 51 40 —Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 52 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 53 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 55 51 —Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 56 52 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 57 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 58 61 —Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 59 4 Custom Soil Resource Report 64—Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 60 Soil Information for All Uses 62 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 62 Building Site Development 62 Shallow Excavations (Segment E) 62 Soil Reports 73 Building Site Development 73 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segment E) 73 References 82 5 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 6 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 7 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 8 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 9 1 x- ii 0m3X,1 QYIl ift aT ► QqA► I , mum, :7CZ}Ervr LLORv �[YR TiiS?t•Imre M.6C IS oW; M 6[ -:S ..Y.;fir • _air Th"--":"NI+ ' erg.. S - 'iA... 4\4 IP 1 y s _ 11f. y -, • / ^ _ {;*Or_. je, / � �� ul - • • "ii 1.... i • t _ '' AC � 11'• ' , ' 4110 Iv 1 r • f • �1•t ^ . •Slr.st • • .4:34,,,— {f i • • �y • q+1b- . - li, • .. - 'Se I•J..I _ '• -• �' Wit, :•- / i •T.,aal.1.•4 — • I? y i ,„„.4r. „ / , . • ••• • 4.. . s�. . ; /: �• >_. - ' }:F'r-I" Ill a ,,,7,-. J 1�►1 al. `' t •_ft • •'{'�\'�•-y • if 4 '` • 1 .. ' w - . 11 A. , .• s/.- a'1. 2' - lill IIN' � _ K:ILI ,• •+ •y - } 1 . �Pi � :::7111:11:111;:a.. • • 4.•t •�' TJ ' ' I , / ,• %• 1 I ' - • ,7 i.•�..-`1 tp da #Apt ... % . , , -01 b .; . - _ • •• ylc 1 , I°. .. ,r� _ �• ' •: t I . . R•--1....) j . . F j - •!'1� I •`> ._ • L.S' ld itt • i - A I -rte A- :en ; '� Y i = ti 44 C' Y • s. --�'. �'iti �, • ..... ., a • , • t�1. ,l• ,k..Y• ••, .M y , ,1. M...f A.r r..- .11,.:•v: � ., . ) •il „if ,... Tw - N r� - r , • 4 - -• - fI !•-J. fJ i . r.. , wt Cr r.• .yY,,. 00•• i � w• \ / \ ' •'rte ' .i :J t.'`+� ( .1• , \ ` , , 1f t •f p • : ... r ad II .- -:".11 114 Piiii I It rt le --\, O CO 3._. • r . J♦ '✓ �i r I F Yr 1 DT•I a • 111 1 _ r !<'• I .. _ S •��CD •' • • \1 • 11.1`; _.%ji ••)•114.), �•�/�+' JI r . Ar . . - 4 / esdid .OIA sc.- — . ,• - - v 1 WE nit V, 7 t .•�p i 'alit °Hi 'I" I:- k\•*•••••............................, 'eSt‘.N ir ir- „, 1.rill.:Lni:Ire:11::::.: 41,14:11 U -I1 . ' �' `C 1 . i :sit:: *•�{;r '( ++ '! iii •II +� t , • , • . 4,1:fit• tat sall• • _ •�fiF' - _ 4J �• • - �. 3. , _—_ _} w 4 ."�T I w� I I • tI 1 • 1 a 1 • . e•�_ • , _ r A `.•. , ` �I � ' , '�'7• '•1 V'• . 1 �•• � C . _ '1'�'•: , a'-• - . �r�' � : _•j f /yam • --•--._„.. 4 OOGG .., • _J t ,v I .•'�� r ` .. 8 m I {B� I DID Ma * , 0 Vi.,1. f .a__• .riar ? • .- i • • fit. ' le 2 .. fr - :.. . lig 4it,„ .i, a. i.....1/4H.:4_ t _ IcOS • _ - : 1 ( _+ ' ° -•J Y • • -J • ] . a}. 1 ' i -! i J J'• ' ` �' -a.' r' • 3or�'-*. _M1 . . z.{ •� , 1 •-j.�"•~ 1. fly a16 •T t�yir i• t • �. •Iff' _. I ,J 8 se • _ !�? • !!. i' r_ .... '' ..".M...".1":11. �` � ,•.I -.TAB ' .. 4 • ` �. 1.., , , ; _lot) _ •A ' • rS) 1 ."• tI•../. _ - �,� ` _ . • f J, J 1 :e. I' I ._ yj{v�7I L O O All I. •' . ... . , hi t 40i A e i '' II : 4 - K. •�.> II 1. 3 M�I I I Man}a AO% ..•"l"' u. • IA C. 1j II,'. . •• • -' Ef•'R'i' "�•r"'�.i . . itilltThe, i •" ii 1,7 ‘ 1 4.. r . • ' '• .-��.... _-I_• .: • •�•' lv • I - 1 .7a. • , �^PaligiodriBli 1 a ,40• 001 'T.Era tvt• �t Y fX l't• f ► 1'r fl ___ Y QJQ'Ot'V 209P COOXelr 2 7 i k" 6 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils S O Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot I. • C Q Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation t-tir Rails PIO Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 11 MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 9, 2020 Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 5, 2020 Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Aug 12, 2018 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 5 Aquepts, loamy 6.7 5.7% 7 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 5.5 4.7% 8 Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes D.3 0.3% 22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope 0.1 0.1% 26 Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.7 0.6% 53 Kim loam, 1 10 3 percent slopes 6.9 5.8% 60 Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent slopes 1.0 0.8% 71 Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 1.4 1.2% 77 Otero sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4.4 3.8% 78 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 3.4 2.9% 79 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 0.8 0.6% 80 Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent slopes 0.1 0.1% 107 Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4.3 3.6% 108 Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 1.2 1.0% 136 Water 0.2 0.1% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 36.9 31.2% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 4.1 3.5% 47 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 3.5 3.0% 65 Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 2.0 1.7% 67 Thedalund-Keota loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes 1.2 1.0% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 10.8 9.1% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 8.7 7.4% 5 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 14.0 11.8% 24 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.3 1.9% 31 Kim loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.1 1.7% 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 23.5 19.9% 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 1.3 1.1% 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 1.3 1.1% 38 Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 5.6 4.8% 40 Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.6 0.5% 47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.2 0.2% 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 1.1 1.0% 51 Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.7 0.6% 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 3.6 3.0% 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 3.4 2.9% 61 Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 1.0 0.8% 64 Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.2 1.0% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 70.5 59.6% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion 15 Custom Soil Resource Report of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Larimer County Area, Colorado 5—Aquepts, loamy Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpws Elevation: 4,500 to 6,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 80 to 140 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Aquepts and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquepts Setting Landform: Draws, depressions, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread, dip Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy alluvium Typical profile HI - 0 to 60 inches: variable Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Very poorly drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to very high (0.60 to 99.90 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: RareNone Frequency of ponding: None Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 5w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: ND Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Stoneham Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Fort collins Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Nunn Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 7 —Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2sw13 Elevation: 3,870 to 5,960 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam Bt1 - 6 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 12 to 19 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 19 to 35 inches: sandy clay loam C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Custom Soil Resource Report Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Olnest Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 8 —Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlnt Elevation: 3,550 to 5,970 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam Bt1 - 6 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 12 to 19 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 19 to 35 inches: sandy clay loam C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains, R072XY111 KS - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Stoneham Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R072XY100KS - Loamy Tableland , R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains, R072XY111 KS - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 20 Custom Soil Resource Report Platner Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R072XY100KS - Loamy Tableland , R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 22 —Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvt Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Caruso and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Caruso Setting Landform: Stream terraces, flood -plain steps Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 35 inches: clay loam H2 - 35 to 44 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 35 to 44 inches: sand, gravelly sand H3 - 44 to 60 inches: H3 - 44 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 48 inches 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of flooding: OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Loveland Percent of map unit: 9 percent Landform: Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit: 6 percent Landform: Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 26 —Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvy Elevation: 4,800 to 5,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Cushman and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cushman Setting Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Material weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 2 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 2 to 13 inches: clay loam, sandy clay loam, loam H2 - 2 to 13 inches: loam 22 Custom Soil Resource Report H2 - 2 to 13 inches: weathered bedrock H3 - 13 to 31 inches: H4 - 31 to 35 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067XY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Tassel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Stoneham Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 53 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpwx Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 23 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Kim Setting Landform: Fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: H2 - 7 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 26.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067XY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Fort collins Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Stoneham Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Aquic haplustolls Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 60—Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx5 Elevation: 4,800 to 6,300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 49 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Larim and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Larim Setting Landform: Terraces, benches, fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope, riser Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 4 to 15 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam, very gravelly clay loam H2 - 4 to 15 inches: very gravelly loamy sand, very gravelly sand H3 - 15 to 60 inches: H3 - 15 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 40 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XB215CO - Gravelly Foothill 25 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Midway Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Tassel Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No 71 —Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxk Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Nelson and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nelson Setting Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 25 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 5 to 25 inches: weathered bedrock H3 - 25 to 29 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Custom Soil Resource Report Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Tassel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 77 —Otero sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxr Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 17 inches: sandy loam H2 - 17 to 60 inches: sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy very fine sand H2 - 17 to 60 inches: H2 - 17 to 60 inches: 27 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 14.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Ascalon Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Nelson Percent of map unit: 1 percent Hydric soil rating: No 78 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxs Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 28 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Otero Setting Landform: Fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: sandy loam H2 - 15 to 60 inches: sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy very fine sand H2 - 15 to 60 inches: H2 - 15 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 15.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Nelson Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Ascalon Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 29 Custom Soil Resource Report 79 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxt Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 14 inches: sandy loam H2 - 14 to 60 inches: sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy very fine sand H2 - 14 to 60 inches: H2 - 14 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 15.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 30 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Nelson Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Tassel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 80 —Otero -Nelson sandy loans, 3 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxw Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 50 percent Nelson and similar soils: 35 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: sandy loam H2 - 15 to 60 inches: sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy very fine sand H2 - 15 to 60 inches: H2 - 15 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) 31 Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 15.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Description of Nelson Setting Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H9 - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam H2 - 5 to 22 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 5 to 22 inches: weathered bedrock H3 - 22 to 26 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 12 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Tassel Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 32 Custom Soil Resource Report 107—Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpv0 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Material weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: loam H2 - 6 to 37 inches: clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam H2 - 6 to 37 inches: weathered bedrock H2 - 6 to 37 inches: H3 - 37 to 41 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 16.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067XY002CO - Loamy Plains 33 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Otero Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 108—Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpv1 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Material weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: loam H2 - 6 to 37 inches: clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam H2 - 6 to 37 inches: weathered bedrock H2 - 6 to 37 inches: H3-37to41 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 16.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067XY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Renohill Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No 136 —Water Map Unit Composition Water: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Water Setting Landform: Rivers, lakes Minor Components Aquents Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes 35 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part 4 —Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t1p5 Elevation: 4,550 to 6,050 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam Bt1 - 7 to 13 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 13 to 18 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 18 to 48 inches: sandy loam C - 48 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 36 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Olnest Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Otero Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: I nterfl uves Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 47 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3601 Elevation: 4,500 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains, fans Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous loamy alluvium and/or colluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam H2 - 5 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 5 to 60 inches: 37 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very high (about 14.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Stoneham Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Bushman Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Kim Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Mitchell Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No 65 —Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 360p Elevation: 4,000 to 6,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 120 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Terry and similar soils: 85 percent 38 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Terry Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous sandy residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam H2 - 5 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 5 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam H3 - 17 to 32 inches: weathered bedrock H3 - 17 to 32 inches: H3 - 17 to 32 inches: H4 - 32 to 36 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Tassel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Olney Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Renohill Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 39 Custom Soil Resource Report 67—Thedalund-Keota loarns, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 360r Elevation: 3,500 to 6,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 45 percent Keota and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains, ridges, alluvial fans Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from siltstone and/or calcareous loamy residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H9 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 24 inches: loam H3 - 24 to 28 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 40 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Keota Setting Landform: Plains, ridges, alluvial fans Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous loamy residuum weathered from siltstone Typical profile H9 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 35 inches: silt loam H3 - 35 to 39 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY009CO - Siltstone Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Epping Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Kim Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Shingle Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Mitchell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 41 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3621 Elevation: 3,600 to 4,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 100 to 165 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent Aquepts, flooded, and similar soils: 25 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquolls Setting Landform: Drainageways, plains, depressions Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile 14.1 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes 42 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Aquepts, Flooded Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY038CO - Wet Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Thedalund Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 5 —Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2sw13 Elevation: 3,870 to 5,960 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches 43 Custom Soil Resource Report Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam Btl - 6 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 12 to 19 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 19 to 35 inches: sandy clay loam C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Olnest Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear 44 Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 24 —Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlnc Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Fort coffins and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fort Collins Setting Landform: Stream terraces, interfluves Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene or older alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam Bkl - 16 to 29 inches: loam Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches 45 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 12 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: I nterfl uves Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 31 —Kim loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3629 Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 46 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 42 inches: loam H3 - 42 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 32 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362b Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Custom Soil Resource Report Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362c Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362d Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Custom Soil Resource Report Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 35 inches: loam H3 - 35 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Valent Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 38 —Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362j Elevation: 4,800 to 5,050 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 57 degrees F Frost -free period: 145 to 190 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Nelson and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nelson Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H9 - 0 to 9 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 9 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 30 to 34 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Thedalund Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Terry Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 40 —Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t1n2 Elevation: 3,900 to 6,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches 52 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wages Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Fort collins Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Haverson, very rarely flooded Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Drainageways, terraces, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave, linear Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362v Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days 53 Custom Soil Resource Report Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Zigweid Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 48 —Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362w Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Zigweid Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 51 —Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3630 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Custom Soil Resource Report Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 52 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3631 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low 57 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 12 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 53 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3632 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam Custom Soil Resource Report H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Cushman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 61 —Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363c Elevation: 4,850 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 110 to 165 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Tassel and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Tassel Setting Landform: Breaks Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 11 to 15 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 15 to 20 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY056CO Sandstone Breaks Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Terry Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No 64—Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363g Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days 60 Custom Soil Resource Report Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 29 inches: loam H3 - 29 to 33 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ulm Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Shallow Excavations (Segment E) Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate 62 Custom Soil Resource Report maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 63 Custom Soil Resource Report it 3 Map—Shallow Excavations (Segment E) 14 all a+ar x•IL- e¢t000 505033 Srn000 IOM stlmo 40. 40 11•N ♦ imp • ` I 10• 40. 11'N ■ r aN I ..• r6 L. . . JP A f . f) . \it y . w i t. 4♦ t i 4. - •I'i •1 1 ( Or ) — \.\\ q' i 71. ./T l •Y I' i Iir: eY• vs .,�.. i s1 % cgurat 1 ♦•r -J..' ---... --- t • r• ! ili i 'tom► - - , ‘. .. : • . . . • 1 4 N • •41 (1-1 .. .. ern •"44ar 0444e 124. • • A, AI. - ._ . 1, 1� ' !OUP a to \ 47.t. • ♦ •\\ 7 • j {. �,<r • I j _ - _ 'i[ice •} / - .` , • • - •��' 4 1 . , t � - ;:.. . fir: / ._ .. 2 s7111 • ♦ •l •A • .- 1 1.44 I r " le v - -� • ii f ' _ • et 1;' �' a 114. F j !!44 • I If i • a-IS •, p 1 Cti Va" . 1:t• •Iiiiiiikr•I . ** :kr . p _ _(is • . .4 . .6 . r dr - i a - _ . • ti • .. e .. ...... i I . . . 6 . _ . . .. .. L. t. xi \7 elk\ : . .., ...' •• I •I 1 t.. 1 .7 . 4 ;� _ Y � A a::as i r j„ it:: . tti 14 A 1 , y s ," All' 1 #4i 4 •• • It., . . . .* ;;Ik stros. .. p.b c e':' --,;..; • • . . , - • I Y; w` l:l • — "Is i • -Tr-. .w . -, - • _' - -- .-_,.•ate. _ jr'_. �� I Y. I, ficfr ib ,•A r • • •:4.j ' - >1" /. W♦'y ..4. .6.4,arc, • . _ , A. ....- 1 1. 0. aom•-� - • .� ' , �' t � �:thef 'a ' •.its :J',• • ,•4 - _ '. '_ - ♦ i1 ' , -- 1 al—Wi di l •.„-iTa.:it ‘ ....;:corc.• s. I % a .111)) '' ill • ••4 . 4... A , , iiNs as:...a Z., -. ... • i .... ..... r..______ ___ i , J i 1476. he a . "I. tor ii. . . ....? • :. . t r :A \/jam • �'.. . ti - . • { •,SI _ I • , ., sF•.••.I. ', • • 6 Nil• ....4. ‘ -11•••• \•••• 1614 • 4.,' 44. . ..r.„ i _ �•� y _z iL .• l. • af t . i 11114r••iii i; 4 ♦ !!J^^i..♦" 11 . r , ..•-:•11•my 7,41 b ' , f . . .. jr .,IL 1.0.1 rt. ,-1 M., ..1 1...t ig ' 10 i►ii •• Y, 410• ffi11•N 40' eat 501Om Sate 91351:1C0 IWOCO i i M 5110C11 3h PR Map Scale: 1:62,100 t prfrad on 3 portrat(11'x 1T)sheet. r — �_ — __ :Metiers N 0 9v 1000 21:111 3an A )Feet MD ,zao0 imp) P4ep pnleabn: web Messer Corner aoordlneoes: 1412384 Edge tics: (JIM Zone 13N WCS84 64 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines • • as It AI I Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points ® Very limited Somewhat limited ® Not limited Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation t Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 65 MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 9, 2020 Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Survey Arca Data: Version 15, Jun 5, 2020 Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Aug 12, 2018 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Tables —Shallow Excavations (Segment E) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Aquepts, loamy Not rated Aquepts (80%) Kim (5%) Stoneham (5%) Fort Collins (5%) Nunn (5%) 6.7 5.7% Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ascalon (85%) Dusty (0.10) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Olnest (10%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Vona (5%) Unstable excavation walls (D.05) 5.5 4.7% Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ascalon (80%) Dusty (0.10) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Stoneham (10%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Vona (8%) Dusty (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Platner (2%) Dusty (0.36) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.3 0.3% Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Somewhat limited Caruso (85%) Depth to saturated zone (0.95) Flooding (0.60) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 0.1 0.1% Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Cushman (90%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.35) Dusty (0.30) 0.7 0.6% 67 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 53 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.30) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 6.9 5.8% 60 Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent slopes Very limited Larim (85%) Slope (1.00) Dusty (0.07) Unstable excavation walls (D.02) 1.0 0.8% 71 Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nelson (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.84) Dusty (0.06) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 1.4 1.2% 77 Otero sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 4.4 3.8% 78 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 3.4 2.9% 79 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (80%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 0.8 0.6% 80 Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (50%) Slope (0.04) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 0.1 0.1% 107 Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (90%) Dusty (0.32) Depth to soft bedrock (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 4.3 3.6% 108 Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (90%) Dusty (0.32) Depth to soft bedrock (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 1.2 1.0% 68 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 136 Water Not rated Water (95%) 0.2 0.1 % Aquents (5%) Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 36.9 31.2% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ascalon (85%) Dusty (0.09) 4.1 3.5% Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Olnest (8%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Otero (7%) Dusty (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 47 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.05) 3.5 3.0% Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 65 Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Terry (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.29) 2.0 1.7% Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 67 Thedalund-Keota foams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (45%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.90) 1.2 1.0% Dusty (0.32) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Keota (30%) Dusty (0.39) Depth to soft bedrock (0.10) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 10.8 9.1% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% 69 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Very limited Aquolls (55%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Aquepts, flooded (25%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 8.7 7.4% 5 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ascalon (85%) Dusty (0.10) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Olnest (10%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Vona (5%) Unstable excavation walls (D.05) 14.0 11.8% 24 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Fort Collins (85%) Dusty (0.24) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Nunn (10%) Dusty (0.3D) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Vona (5%) Dusty (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 2.3 1.9% 31 Kim loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 2.1 1.7% 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 23.5 19.9% 70 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 1.3 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 1.3 38 Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nelson (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.46) Dusty (0.06) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 5.6 4.8% 40 Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Wages (8%) Dusty (0.26) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Fort Collins (5%) Dusty (0.26) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Haverson, very /rarely flooded (2%) Dusty (0.28) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 0.6 0.5% 47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.2 0.2% 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 1.1 1.0% 51 Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.7 0.6% 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 3.6 3.0% 71 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) 3.4 2.9% Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 61 Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Very limited Tassel (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (1.00) 1.0 0.8% Slope (0.84) Dusty (0.05) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 64 Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (90%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.54) 1.2 1.0% Dusty (0.28) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 70.5 59.6% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Somewhat limited 100.7 85.2% Very limited 10.7 9.0% Null or Not Rated 6.9 5.8% Totals for Area of Interest 118.2 100.0% Rating Options —Shallow Excavations (Segment E) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher 72 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segment E) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 73 Custom Soil Resource Report Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic -supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic -supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report —Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segment E) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. 74 Custom Soil Resource Report The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping-Larimer County Area, Colorado Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 5—Aquepts, loamy Aquepts 80 Not rated Not rated Not rated 7 -Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Ascalon 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.10 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.10 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 8 —Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Ascalon 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.10 Frost action 0.50 Dusty ❑.10 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 22 —Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Caruso 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Flooding 0.60 Flooding 1 MO Depth to saturated zone 0.95 Dusty 0.33 Low strength 0.69 Flooding ❑.60 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.33 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 26 —Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Cushman 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to bedrock 0.35 Frost action 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock ❑.35 Dusty 0.30 Dusty 0.30 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 53 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.30 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.30 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 75 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping-Larimer County Area, Colorado Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 64 Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent slopes Larim 85 Very limited Very limited Very limited Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Droughty 0.99 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.07 Gravel content 0.32 Unstable excavation walls 0.02 Dusty 0.07 71 —Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Nelson 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to bedrock 0.84 Frost action 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.84 Low exchange capacity 0.75 Dusty 0.06 Droughty 0.40 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.06 77 Otero sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 78 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 4.01 79 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Otero 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 76 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping-Larimer County Area, Colorado Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 80 —Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent slopes Otero 50 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Slope 0.04 Slope 0.04 Slope 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Nelson 35 Very limited Very limited Very limited Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Depth to bedrock 0.97 Frost action 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.97 Droughty 0.80 Dusty 0.05 Low exchange capacity 0.75 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.05 107—Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Thedalund 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.32 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.32 Depth to bedrock 0.03 Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.03 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 108—Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Thedalund 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.32 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.32 Depth to bedrock 0.03 Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.03 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 136 —Water Water 95 Not rated Not rated Not rated 77 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 4 -Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Ascalon 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 47 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.05 Dusty 0.05 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 65 —Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Terry 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.29 Depth to bedrock 0.29 Dusty 0.04 Droughty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.04 67—Thedalund-Keota loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Thedalund 45 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to bedrock 0.90 Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.90 Dusty 0.32 Dusty 4.32 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Keota 30 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.39 Dusty 0.39 Depth to soft bedrock 0.10 Depth to bedrock 0.10 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 78 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 4-Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Aquolls 55 Not rated Very limited Very limited Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 0.80 Shrink -swell 0.50 Dusty 4.09 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 Aquepts, flooded 25 Not rated Very limited Very limited Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 0.80 Shrink -swell 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 5 —Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Ascalon 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.10 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.10 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 24 —Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Fort collins 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.24 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 4.24 Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls 4.01 31 Kim loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 4.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 32 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 79 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 38 —Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Nelson 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.75 Depth to soft bedrock 0.46 Depth to bedrock 0.46 Dusty 0.06 Dusty 0.06 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 Droughty 0.04 40 —Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.77 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 48 —Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 80 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 51 Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 52 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 61 —Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Tassel 85 Very limited Somewhat limited Very limited Depth to bedrock 1.00 Depth to soft bedrock 1.00 Depth to soft bedrock 1.00 Droughty 0.99 Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Dusty 0.05 Low exchange capacity 0.75 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.05 64—Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Thedalund 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to bedrock 0.54 Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.54 Dusty 0.28 Dusty 0.28 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 81 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid =nres 142 p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wpsiportal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/nationalflanduse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 82 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.govilnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 83 USDA United States a Department of Agriculture RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Segment C - North January 12, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portalfnres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://vvww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/contactusi? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 14 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum 14 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 15 5 —Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 17 13—Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 19 15 Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 20 17 —Colby loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 21 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 22 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 23 41 —Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 24 42 —Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 26 47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 27 48 —Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 28 51 —Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 29 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 31 53 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 32 79 —Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 33 82 Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 35 83 —Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes 37 85 —Water 38 Soil Information for All Uses 40 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 40 Building Site Development 40 Shallow Excavations (Segment C - North) 40 Soil Reports 48 Building Site Development 48 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segment C - North) 48 References 54 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 40" 70 1'N ,54 3 0 113330 tad Map Scale: 1:34,600 'printed on B portrait (11"x 171 shed 2000 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map MIS0C0 Meters 3000 F 300 _ 9000 Fed Plap projection: Web Mermdlr Care morinates: 1MG584 Edge tics: UTM Zone UN WGS84 'i7 fir &vrm 104` s? 1r w 1J4Tr KP 7b'411N 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils S R Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features (2) 0• 0 itt N Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot •- Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails istusida Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Aug 12, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum 7.3 8.1% 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 3.2 3.5% 5 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 3.5 3.9% 13 Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 0.1 0.1% 15 Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.6 2.9% 17 Colby loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 2.0 2.2% 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes D.4 0.4% 34 Kim loam, 510 9 percent slopes 1.7 1.9% 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 8.4 9.4% 42 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 4.1 4.6% 47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 9.7 10.8% 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 0.4 0.4% 51 Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.8 0.9% 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 4.4 4.9% 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 3.5 3.9% 79 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 14.1 15.8% 82 Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 12.5 13.9% 83 Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes 10.5 11.7% 85 Water D.4 0.5% Totals for Area of Interest 89.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3627 Elevation: 4,000 to 7,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 80 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent Aquents, gravelly substratum, and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquolls Setting Landform: Streams, flood plains, swales Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 48 inches: loam H2 - 48 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Aquents, Gravelly Substratum Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 48 inches: variable H2 - 48 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to very high (0.57 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Bankard Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Ustic torrifluvents Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3621 Elevation: 3,600 to 4,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 100 to 165 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent Aquepts, flooded, and similar soils: 25 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquolls Setting Landform: Drainageways, plains, depressions Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Aquepts, Flooded Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY038CO - Wet Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Thedalund Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 5 —Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2sw13 Elevation: 3,870 to 5,960 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam Btl - 6 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 12 to 19 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 19 to 35 inches: sandy clay loam C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Olnest Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: I nterfl uves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13—Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361 n Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 13 inches Mean annual air temperature: 52 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 120 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cascajo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cascajo Setting Landform: Ridges, terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous gravelly alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 31 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam H3 - 31 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 25 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY063CO - Gravel Breaks Hydric soil rating: No 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Renohill Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Samsil Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No 15 —Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361 q Elevation: 4,850 to 5,050 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Colby and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Colby Setting Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e 20 Custom Soil Resource Report Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wiley Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 17 —Colby loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361 s Elevation: 4,850 to 5,050 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 155 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Colby and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Colby Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wiley Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362c Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362d Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 35 inches: loam H3 - 35 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Valent Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No 41 —Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ting Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits 24 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 25 Custom Soil Resource Report 42 —Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tipl Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam Btk - 13 to 25 inches: clay loam Bkl - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam Bk2 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C 26 Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Satanta Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362v Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam 27 Custom Soil Resource Report H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Zigweid Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 48 —Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362w Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Zigweid Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 51 —Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3630 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches 29 Custom Soil Resource Report Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 52 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3631 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 12 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 53 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3632 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Cushman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 79 —Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2x0hw Elevation: 3,600 to 5,750 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 115 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Weld and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Weld Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loam Bt1 - 8 to 12 inches: clay Bt2 - 12 to 15 inches: clay loam Btk - 15 to 28 inches: loam Bk - 28 to 60 inches: silt loam C - 60 to 80 inches: silt loam 33 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 14 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Adena Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Colby Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Baca Percent of map unit: 2 percent 34 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 82 —Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3643 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Wiley and similar soils: 60 percent Colby and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiley Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.7 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Description of Colby Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Weld Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Heldt Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 83 —Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3644 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Wiley and similar soils: 55 percent Colby and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiley Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 toll inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 37 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Colby Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Weld Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 85 —Water Map Unit Composition Water: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Aquolls Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes Hydric soil rating: Yes Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Shallow Excavations (Segment C - North) Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate 40 Custom Soil Resource Report maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 41 Custom Soil Resource Report ER Map—Shallow Excavations (Segment C - North) L. St ui a Imo 5u+000 501:03 5050:0 glen SNaoo 51000 s®mo 44' W41'N 0 ,� 1 s^es`l.�L' •,"r �� Llr�! A •. .1 .;1T �"� • - L . ` R 40' �41•N a�-• . �1. \tr di Tis•,•C , 1v aa. ha 4. . 1. r It • • 1 . �• 1 ./ • ' Ti 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 yy j� .Ug3r a0'.3 t 't ..$ ,r •� ; 1 ... ` 1.. • • . / I IP , N ? 1. 4 is, , r, - = 9 r \ [ , v• 4 .. j it i Y — + ., ' X3 '" `.` -�. N I . . t :C. 400 le IL- , _ } 3/4' -- -ix . \ - -. r 1 ... _ gest k arc , It‘ riallY""1.-4--/-- •- ‘ 4 iss. 59 , • . . .. eff 1 Ike ft mai •. . . .I . re,_ _O1 .. %. 4. w I ,. • , . '�A1...` L •� , • • • Y ,�♦ - • tom.41.1 111 - ` * } i g .\: • , . ' . \ t't ern}... 't % i 41.1: keN 7- t"'% 1St . .. • , _ i W . _ ., r 1 J' ili _ • 'i 11-te, i %tilt : of { j4 M. ?' { 1 • ty C;Ite• ki..iir. x '1 �,' " � 42 6, . • 1. if ft- S1/4 '`\ i 04*, f 34 33 . �. 3 � . . • . .. is..... ., • • ar: . . . 0.1;E -141 ... . sr r - . _aid* : , 1. it! • 6 i- -, • " % N) . 4 .... -_, i 4 f . Allii„ • .... . . a T 52 s a. -I_ N.. 4 le' IT 11 \ N. i .� x,51 r ,-. Ilikt• ..uti a is. -. : . ... 4, - - . i t I . .,„ fiti. i s".>"\\\*.:"'"3/4‘. . i. ... . ' 5-2\40 !;;;E li . . . \ _ [ _ V . if 1 ii.a. ‘ iAl•Pr 4q • .• t r r ` 1,,, , .. • ......, . . - CI•. ' Syr, • pa • ....4, i .4.7...), r.0.06000,,,,,i__.,_..iet.,, :n ,,,.. , .. . , '11- 41.S.- e. Olir frit • . -. 1r • • . " r S ,ra 4 I i... fri .. ,.. , . .. it F. c ' . .1 ' — - - .-. -.ft nit-v. Aill ' ' 1 , • • t.. Ty T-♦ '` . ^��'l�d ,•ll yam.•,.•.IT ' -fi l Wa k ,,i ► • •'►••� • - •�- ji • • _ �•��j,�' ti,•v'- :Y f:r'" r "�Y� •"f ► • T - J! i r�i F' alp} ' , _ 'tit.; it."•� ,� 'Jl, t , t� "11' I.• fir`" ,i� •. i i .. • - ,J, ,{ ),.t•j1'n1'�i � . y`ez.p1. 4 it I‘ eNe Jr-• Ail 1. %I • I 40• IO' 1'N _ ;` X• - r"- . "s"• • �'w.a:.._4 • Ita?i`71~ ppp Kr `, h 3 ; et Map Scale: 1:34,600 i prtrl0ed on B portrait(11" x 17') street in N � XXD A a - 3 °° e°°° _ Feet s°°° Map prujrCbn: Web Mauer Career mots* S s: WCSEI4 Edge tks: IJTM lone UN WGSE#1 42 Custom Soil Resource Report Area of Interest (AOl) MAP LEGEND Background PI Area of Interest (AOI) Aerial Photography Soils Soil Rating Polygons Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines • • 0 Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points ® Very limited O Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 -Aug 12, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Tables —Shallow Excavations (Segment C - North) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Very limited Aquolls (55%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.31) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 7.3 8.1% 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Very limited Aquolls (55%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Aquepts, flooded (25%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 3.2 3.6% 5 Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ascalon (85%) Dusty (0.10) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Olnest (10%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Vona (5%) Unstable excavation walls (D.05) 3.5 3.9% 13 Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Somewhat limited Cascajo (85%) Slope (0.84) Unstable excavation walls (0.83) Dusty (0.03) 0.1 0.1% 15 Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Colby (85%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 2.6 2.9% 44 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 17 Colby loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Colby (90%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 2.0 2.2% 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.4 0.4% 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 1.7 1.9% 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.34) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Heldt (10%) Unstable excavation walls (0.55) Dusty (0.49) Too clayey (0.13) Wages (5%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 8.4 9.4% 42 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Heldt (10%) Dusty (0.42) Unstable excavation walls (0.25) Too clayey (0.13) Satanta (5%) Dusty (0.31) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 4.1 4.6% 47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 9.7 10.8% 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.4 0.4% 45 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 51 Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.8 0.9% 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 4.4 4.9% 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Dusty (0.04) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 3.5 3.9% 79 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Weld (80%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Adena (8%) Dusty (0.30) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (7%) Dusty (0.48) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Keith (3%) Dusty (0.36) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Baca (2%) Dusty (0.35) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 14.1 15.8% 82 Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Wiley (60%) Dusty (0.50) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (30%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 12.5 13.9% 83 Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Wiley (55%) Dusty (0.50) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (30%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 10.5 11.7% 46 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 85 Water Not rated Water (95%) 0.4 0.5% Aquolls (5%) Totals for Area of Interest 89.5 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Somewhat limited 78.7 87.9% Very limited 10.4 11.7% Null or Not Rated 0.4 0.5% Totals for Area of Interest 89.5 100.0% Rating Options —Shallow Excavations (Segment C - North) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher 47 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segment C - North) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 48 Custom Soil Resource Report Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic -supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic -supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report —Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segment C - North) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. 49 Custom Soil Resource Report The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Aquolls 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Dusty 0.31 Frost action 0.50 Flooding 0.80 Depth to saturated zone 0.04 Depth to saturated zone 0.04 Dusty 0.31 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Aquents, gravelly substratum 30 Not rated Very limited Not rated Frost action 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.94 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Aquolls 55 Not rated Very limited Very limited Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 0.80 Shrink -swell 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Aquepts, flooded 25 Not rated Very limited Very limited Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 0.80 Shrink -swell 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 5 —Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Ascalon 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.10 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.10 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 50 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 13 Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Cascajo 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Droughty 0.61 Unstable excavation walls 0.83 Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.03 Large stones content 0.20 Gravel content 0.10 15 Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Colby 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 17 —Colby loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Colby 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 51 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.34 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.34 Shrink -swell 0.77 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 42 —Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0/7 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 4$ Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 51 —Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 52 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 52 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Otero 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.04 Dusty 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 79 —Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Weld 80 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.01 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 82 —Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Wiley 60 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.50 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.42 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Colby 30 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 83 —Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes Wiley 55 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.50 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 4.50 Shrink -swell 0.42 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Colby 30 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 85 Water Water 95 Not rated Not rated Not rated 53 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid =nres 142 p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wpsiportal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/nationalflanduse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 54 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.govilnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 55 USDA United States Department of Agriculture \RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Adams County Area, Parts of Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado; and Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Segments Band C - South January 12, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portalfnres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://vvww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/contactusi? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 6 Soil Map 9 Soil Map 10 Legend 11 Map Unit Legend 13 Map Unit Descriptions 14 Adams County Area, Parts of Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado 17 UIC—Ulm loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 17 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 19 1—Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 19 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum 20 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 21 6 —Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 23 10 —Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded 25 27—Heldt silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes 27 32 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 28 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 29 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 30 35—Loup-Boel loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes 31 39 Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 33 40 —Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 34 41 —Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 36 42 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 37 44 —Olney loamy sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes 39 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 40 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 41 57—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 42 61 —Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 43 64 Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 44 65—Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 45 67 —Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 47 70 Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes 48 72 —Vona loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 50 73 —Vona loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes 51 76 Vona sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 53 77 —Vona sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 54 78 —Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 55 79 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 57 81 —Wiley -Colby complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 59 82 —Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 60 83 Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes 62 85 —Water 64 4 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Information for All Uses 65 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 65 Building Site Development 65 Shallow Excavations (Segments B and C - South) 65 Soil Reports 77 Building Site Development 77 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segments B and C - South) 77 References 87 5 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 6 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 7 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 8 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 9 Custom Soil Resource Report ; A Soil Map h le 41313XIJ _�_ - x:111 5011333511QXJ 515fm 51 '11; v im :I'.'::w. r� ;` a _� .��..,.�, sem �� • - l b■ 7I7 10'V Ilt I, I.II ir 0 • 1 VI 41 "SI 1 ' e • 4 s• . , 4Cil al eta\ lir ' • ) • . • lit -;41 ifir ti i Ple:,-.,, 4 "lab -poo . .„ _ ID bek .el ill a"? -.. 1 i ill C4".' , irs .4.......tc . r isltfrv. 1 . . 4 1 . -,.. A .1. -Ai , ii , a-- _...... s i Ili • .,"%*"*"a ki 4 , k . . • ; „, . imiti i da Ire . .. Illir r i a ' • f W++• op / ill: I, Itio>so • • • I Ill0 - • ' -: ilk\ S. -. 4 .1144 i -ft I. •, a 4111 r a L C• t I r . iTIP •10 i r 1 at. lill 1_1 . gll All N • .g 1 • :1/4\44.4H‘li • e • A. le i ear ISelf 6 4 . .-I • - . It elf . ' la A III le Oll• _ 1 -•f s , ‘‘\%?)‘ \ -101r i "o•1.14 . ' ille ii it 4 it • v•Ijilf: jtj4. .. Z.- •-•:.? 4. - y " IlliI4llIllk\ .i 4 if r1/4 • iliit a ll\ it 1 a . - . • J b •M •• lir i— fro.. 1 _IP' r li • r. ins <' F . + 1 z rt •• MO• • Y. 4 WO I... 147Nil • _` * r f - • • •Y - II t I • � r • f " . _. S la r P(.... als. ; s i „is Ili., . • • • eni y , . tt - 1/ r• .�. i 1 4. -~ • \ -y 1 I le; •w • � r re, e J . .,.. '' ( . or • • i a l. a *el ,:j. • es * 440 "..• . i . 1 fbai,M . � • . r IH • .."...I -Lets, t . t- - . T.-- .51 3 fa Ir • (*) , _/ 1 AI 4 . th. b , * . . •Il 111c a i / + 1y 1 • .1 In . • J 7� 4 al i • . .." s . • Ile A ........./. 1 .111IP % . ...1• -. 41114 • • • N\i'aPeo ea It . it/ II. ' ..C.22: ' - • tiry. ...... _sr,' -- L . I i . I • P.-Pit' r t ♦ 1 - F • V "J N.,....._ r A • i / `1� ; ` • r /\\•\ it ' t f , 51.1-411L , t , 0 )111 . , a ...? . 1.5. • — 414;2.--; .... . • -____,117.. .cii - . . \--.)---/ ... ak. w _I alt ) 7... . i 39° sr 117 N J9. 5Q1QN 41910 MUD MIX) 5Q11flJ 511QY) 51.511E 519133) t ; m Map Scale: 1:114,000 f periled on B portrat(11"x 17")sheet, 19 N - Meters 0 1900 3mo EOM soon $ 1 Feet 0 9000 loom MIL 30000 Map ;mean: Web Met ator Corner coordinates: VAZ84 Edge tits. UTM none ON W G934 10 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons • Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout 0 • A. 4' 0 Q • • • Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot as Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 11 MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at scales ranging from 1:20,000 to 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Adams County Area, Parts of Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 17, Jun 4, 2020 Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Dec 4, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI UIC Ulm loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes D.0 0.0% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 0.0 0.0% Totals for Area of Interest 266.4 100.0% Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 1.9 0.7% 3 Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum 8.1 3.1% 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 2.1 0.8% 6 Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 0.7 0.3% 10 Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded 0.4 0.1% 27 Heldt silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes 5.6 2.1% 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.7 0.3% 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 3.6 1.4% 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 9.8 3.7% 35 Loup-Boel loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.0 0.4% 39 Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 3.5 1.3% 40 Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.8 1.1% 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 8.2 3.1% 42 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 26.9 10.1% 44 Olney loamy sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes 2.8 1.1% 47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 20.8 7.8% 48 Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 3.0 1.1% 57 Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 1.9 0.7% 61 Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 5.6 2.1% 64 Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.5 0.2% 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 65 Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 0.8 0.3% 67 Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 1.9 0.7% 70 Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes 3.7 1.4% 72 Vona loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 30.4 11.4% 73 Vona loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes 9.6 3.6% 76 Vona sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.6 0.6% 77 Vona sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 3.5 1.3% 78 Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.6 1.0% 79 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 22.3 8.4% 81 Wiley -Colby complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.6 1.0% 82 Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 60.2 22.6% 83 Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes 17.0 6.4% 85 Water 0.2 0.1% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 266.4 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 266.4 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called 14 Custom Soil Resource Report noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can 15 Custom Soil Resource Report be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Adams County Area, Parts of Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado UIC—Ulm loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 34x4 Elevation: 4,000 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Ulm and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ulm Setting Landform: Plains Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 13 inches: silty clay H3 - 13 to 30 inches: clay H4 - 30 to 48 inches: clay loam H5 - 48 to 52 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Renohill Percent of map unit: 13 percent Hydric soil rating: No Shingle Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Apishapa Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 1—Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361j Elevation: 4,500 to 4,900 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 150 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Altvan and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Altvan Setting Landform: Terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Old alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 25 inches: clay loam H3 - 25 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Available water capacity: Low (about 5.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Cascajo Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Aquic haplustolls Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3627 Elevation: 4,000 to 7,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 80 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent Aquents, gravelly substratum, and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquolls Setting Landform: Streams, flood plains, swales Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 48 inches: loam H2 - 48 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Custom Soil Resource Report Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Aquents, Gravelly Substratum Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 48 inches: variable H2 - 48 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to very high (0.57 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Bankard Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Ustic torrifluvents Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3621 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Elevation: 3,600 to 4,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 100 to 165 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent Aquepts, flooded, and similar soils: 25 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquolls Setting Landform: Drainageways, plains, depressions Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Aquepts, Flooded Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 8 inches: variable Custom Soil Resource Report H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY038CO - Wet Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Thedalund Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 6 —Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlnt Elevation: 3,550 to 5,970 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam Bt1 - 6 to 12 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 12 to 19 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 19 to 35 inches: sandy clay loam C - 35 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains, R072XY111 KS - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Stoneham Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains, R072XY100KS - Loamy Tableland Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve 24 Custom Soil Resource Report Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains, R072XY111 KS - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Platner Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains, R072XY100KS - Loamy Tableland Hydric soil rating: No 10 —Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2xsth Elevation: 3,950 to 5,960 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 165 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Ellicott, rarely flooded, and similar soils: 65 percent Ellicott sandy -skeletal, rarely flooded, and similar soils: 25 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ellicott, Rarely Flooded Setting Landform: Flood plains on intermittent streams, drainageways Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave Parent material: Noncalcareous, stratified sandy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 4 inches: sand AC - 4 to 13 inches: sand C9 - 13 to 30 inches: sand C2 - 30 to 44 inches: sand C3 - 44 to 80 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches 25 Custom Soil Resource Report Drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (13.00 to 39.96 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY031CO - Sandy Bottomland Hydric soil rating: No Description of Ellicott Sandy -skeletal, Rarely Flooded Setting Landform: Channels on intermittent streams, channels on drainageways Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave, linear Parent material: Noncalcareous, stratified sandy alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 4 inches: very gravelly coarse sand AC - 4 to 13 inches: very gravelly sand Cl - 13 to 30 inches: very gravelly sand C2 - 30 to 44 inches: very gravelly sand C3 - 44 to 80 inches: very gravelly coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (13.00 to 39.96 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 1.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY031CO - Sandy Bottomland Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces 26 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY036CO Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 27—Heldt silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3624 Elevation: 4,950 to 5,050 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 59 degrees F Frost -free period: 110 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Heldt and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Heldt Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sediment alluvium derived from shale Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: silty clay H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0 Available water capacity: High (about 9.6 inches) 27 Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Haverson Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 32 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362b Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low 28 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362c Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 34 —Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362d Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 35 inches: loam H3 - 35 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam 30 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Valent Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No 35—Loup-Boel loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362f Elevation: 4,550 to 4,750 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Loup and similar soils: 55 percent Boel and similar soils: 35 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Loup Setting Landform: Swales, drainageways, streams Custom Soil Resource Report Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy alluvium Typical profile HI - 0 to 16 inches: loamy sand H2 - 16 to 40 inches: loamy sand H3 - 40 to 60 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Available water capacity: Low (about 5.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: ND Ecological site: R067BY029CO - Sandy Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Boel Setting Landform: Swales, drainageways, streams Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Stratified sandy alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 14 inches: loamy sand H2 - 14 to 60 inches: loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 inihr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Available water capacity: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: A 32 Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R067BY029CO - Sandy Meadow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Osgood Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Valent Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 39 —Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t1n3 Elevation: 3,900 to 6,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loam Btl - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bkl - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium 33 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Haverson, rarely flooded Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Drainageways Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R067BY036CO Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Heldt Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No 40 —Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t1n2 Elevation: 3,900 to 6,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 34 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: loam Btl - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bkl - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wages Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Alluvial fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Fort collins Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear 35 Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Haverson, very rarely flooded Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Drainageways, terraces, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave, linear Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 41 —Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ting Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk9 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) 36 Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 42 —Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlpl Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 37 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam Btk - 13 to 25 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam Bk2 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water capacity: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Satanta Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains 38 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No 44 —Olney loamy sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362r Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loamy sand H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 39 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Vona Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Zigweid Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362v Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60 Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Custom Soil Resource Report Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Zigweid Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 48 —Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362w Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 175 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 10 to 20 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 20 to 25 inches: sandy clay loam H4 - 25 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent 41 Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Zigweid Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 57—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3636 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 100 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Renohill and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Renohill Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale 42 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile H9 - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam H2 - 9 to 32 inches: clay loam H3 - 32 to 36 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Available water capacity: Low (about 5.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Shingle Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Ulm Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 61 —Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363c Elevation: 4,850 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 110 to 165 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Tassel and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 43 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Tassel Setting Landform: Breaks Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 11 to 15 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 15 to 20 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY056CO Sandstone Breaks Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Terry Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No 64—Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363g Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days 44 Custom Soil Resource Report Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 29 inches: loam H3 - 29 to 33 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ulm Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 65—Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363h Custom Soil Resource Report Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 29 inches: loam H3 - 29 to 33 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ulm Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Renohill Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Terry Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 46 Custom Soil Resource Report Otero Percent of map unit: 1 percent Hydric soil rating: No 67 —Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363k Elevation: 5,070 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 105 to 120 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Ulm and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ulm Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits derived from shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: clay loam H2 - 5 to 17 inches: clay H3 - 17 to 60 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C 47 Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Renohill Percent of map unit: 11 percent Hydric soil rating: No Heldt Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No 70—Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tczf Elevation: 3,050 to 5,150 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Valent and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Valent Setting Landform: Hills, dunes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, footslope, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, head slope, nose slope, crest Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Noncalcareous eolian sands Typical profile A - 0 to 5 inches: sand AC - 5 to 12 inches: sand CI - 12 to 30 inches: sand C2 - 30 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (6.00 to 39.96 in/hr) Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY015CO - Deep Sand, R072XY109KS - Rolling Sands Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Dailey Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Interdunes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R067BY015CO - Deep Sand, R072XA021 KS - Sands (North) (PE 16-20) Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, head slope, nose slope, base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains, R072XA022KS - Sandy (North) Draft (April 2010) (PE 16-20) Hydric soil rating: No Haxtun Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Interdunes Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Concave Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains, R072XY111 KS - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 72 —Vona loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363r Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Vona and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Vona Setting Landform: Plains, terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand H2 - 6 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 50 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Remmit Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Valent Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 73 —Vona loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2x0j8 Elevation: 4,100 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 155 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Vona and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Vona Setting Landform: Hills, hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Eolian sands Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: loamy sand Bt1 - 7 to 14 inches: sandy loam Bt2 - 14 to 20 inches: sandy loam Bk - 20 to 45 inches: sandy loam C - 45 to 80 inches: loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches 51 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY015CO - Deep Sand Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ascalon Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Manter Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hills, interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, interfluve Down -slope shape: Convex, linear Across -slope shape: Convex, linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Olnest Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Interfluves, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, base slope Down -slope shape: Linear, concave Across -slope shape: Linear, concave Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Valent Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Dunes Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, nose slope Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Ecological site: R067BY015CO - Deep Sand Hydric soil rating: No 52 Custom Soil Resource Report 76 —Vona sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363w Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Vona and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Vona Setting Landform: Terraces, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam H2 - 6 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 53 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Remmit Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Olney Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Julesburg Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 77 —Vona sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363x Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Vona and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Vona Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam H2 - 6 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 6.00 inlhr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None 54 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Remmit Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Olney Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Otero Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 78 —Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2x0hy Elevation: 3,600 to 5,750 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 115 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Weld and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Weld Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous loess 55 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loam Bt1 - 8 to 12 inches: clay Bt2 - 12 to 15 inches: clay loam Btk - 15 to 28 inches: loam Bk - 28 to 60 inches: silt loam C - 60 to 80 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 14 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2c Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Colby Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wiley Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: I nterfl uves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit 56 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Baca Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 79 —Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2x0hw Elevation: 3,600 to 5,750 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 115 to 155 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Weld and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Weld Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous loess Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loam Btl - 8 to 12 inches: clay Bt2 - 12 to 15 inches: clay loam Btk - 15 to 28 inches: loam Bk - 28 to 60 inches: silt loam C - 60 to 80 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent 57 Custom Soil Resource Report Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 14 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Adena Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Colby Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Baca Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve 58 Custom Soil Resource Report Down -slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 81 —Wiley -Colby complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3642 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Wiley and similar soils: 60 percent Colby and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiley Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e 59 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Description of Colby Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Keith Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Weld Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No 82 —Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3643 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet 60 Custom Soil Resource Report Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Wiley and similar soils: 60 percent Colby and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiley Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Description of Colby Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Weld Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Heldt Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No 83 —Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3644 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Wiley and similar soils: 55 percent Colby and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Wiley Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H9 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 11.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Description of Colby Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent 63 Custom Soil Resource Report Available water capacity: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Weld Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 85 —Water Map Unit Composition Water: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Minor Components Aquolls Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes Hydric soil rating: Yes 64 Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Shallow Excavations (Segments B and C - South) Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate 65 Custom Soil Resource Report maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 66 Custom Soil Resource Report u Map—Shallow Excavations (Segments B and C - South) N 4830x0 ine 5if/O'0 511O3) 51500 51W ,o• tii SIP. a r err _, .-�- — tr . / _�7R'� -Vr� ..r•� ��• a SI0000/ s 40• E7 1P N I AJI )1 7 Jab Eli O. ..s„, ..1, . ef le -f--r-ing- . •iii ;-, ,• ' 11 /__ _op 1 i§ . pi- ... $a --- zee SP, , ir . ' a 1°- a .- Zel ... At, . ... , _ t - Sr I Mt . : „, pp .a 0 511 .IL . - • ,;iii ei . , P. 4 —*Hs` ,. - ill. 7 '. . skis ,leitir W ti 1 o al j- • .\\S _ 7 , ter. • 'a > 'niter ' ," • !• A. `} 4 ._ �� t • .. , fr ‘... ,„. . , • A N... j • tW . triisc• r . . 4• ak'�J • ti 14. f K • a 1�1 ,, V 4 Y �I I , ` 4,so. t �_ tkiit k .1/4iik. . ., . i e. Imp ll iiisia- • - - me 4.1,. %All. 11\\>` . �....r�..r...rP)e- * sue`._ f - .. i - I'- Ner I • / • 1 r. , . _ . „a... , � `j }. 4 • lb _ ,a .?dill • ` • • R40 .4 NI • � # {� At , . li , .. . _ ,. • . ,.. 7, ._._.. L.. . .... , • . . • , .,,, iflR' ♦�, 1 lIl - R. . • / •, , , • ,f - %EN . r i • II . , of, , . .4 • • • I , . Qiiitil, . ••• .... •r N 11 r \ , 4,. • a • I r 1 ` • f 4 • 2 .. ar I. , a - MAL 85 I--. • . a lir N•sNbcj I' • • .�._.- 4.•; A8 .r• 8...11 . (00..., illbiall • •• i • i , ', . •j . .. . .virfign. • 0. • IP Pli ‘....-..) .. * \ rerj . 9* - \. S , • r a r. '. : I . k , isperi..• 7.-_. - / 4 7: ••••• ...at. • . ' r.a V, % -- ? alit... " I•I j --.;:j / • . s I , - ,..illbe :,)14.i. i., :e, --"Xk.t, 4td..;.4-1.•;•••"..f . .1 ; . '7 urt ' A . . . il . -/ at • I _ Se /- -.f ' 't • Si . , ,1,, z .r.,,_ e pr, \ . • .4..eirj , ;:iistip, • -.a. I.---\ \,,), ), v.... . kr • i.f II(" / 1/41 mi • . • -\: . ., II .. I'l j1/4") I ' di. yt •»_ ._.•� ... ... •••-•-r: .441 I • if. 4r. _flit - . • illi it • ? liS f - *lhlr'.:_II:p,. s.ti _ ..i. . 17/17.4..1"rjeol-Ht - S t• A • ••••-...........„„. iji gyp. 7r' r • • • '1 -',� • - I J '1 r' •, Jen t .^ . . .. i . • i • SY}0'N a• I lillibb • frallibr.11. -7- s I $ :Cr n C a-" Snit swan 511CC) 515OX) 51C 3 3 51 Li Map 5 1:114,000 if peeled on B portal(11{x 171 street It II N - _ :Mehxs 0 19:113000 B3O 9000 g A imini•Iiiimm__ o e000 lam zap 30000 Map prefect in: Web Me-tor Cornermmi*S W=. Edgetla: IJTM zone UN W3934 67 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons U U Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Very limited Somewhat limited f 0 Not limited Not rated or not available al I Soil Rating Points • O 0 9 Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 68 MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at scales ranging from 1:20,000 to 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Adams County Area, Parts of Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 17, Jun 4, 2020 Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Dec 4, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Tables —Shallow Excavations (Segments B and C - South) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI UIC Ulm loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ulm (80%) Dusty (0.45) 0.0 0.0% Too clayey (0.13) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 0.0 0.0% Totals for Area of Interest 266.4 100.0% Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat limited Altvan (90%) Dusty (0.28) 1.9 0.7% Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 3 Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Very limited Aquolls (55%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) 8.1 3.1% Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.31) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Very limited Aquolls (55%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) 2.1 0.8% Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Aquepts, flooded (25%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Flooding (0.80) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 6 Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ascalon (80%) Dusty (0.10) 0.7 0.3% Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 70 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Stoneham (10%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Vona (8%) Dusty (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Platner (2%) Dusty (0.36) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 10 Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded Very limited Ellicott, rarely flooded (65%) Unstable excavation walls (1.00) Ellicott sandy - skeletal, rarely flooded (25%) Unstable excavation walls (1.00) 0.4 0.1% 27 Heldt silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Heldt (85%) Unstable excavation walls (0.51) Dusty (0.50) Too clayey (0.28) 5.6 2.1% 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 0.7 0.3% 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 3.6 1.4% 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Kim (90%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 9.8 3.7% 35 Loup-Boel loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes Very limited Loup (55%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Boel (35%) Depth to saturated zone (1.00) Unstable excavation walls (0.68) 1.0 0.4% 71 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Haverson, rarely flooded (10%) Dusty (0.28) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Heldt (5%) Unstable excavation walls (0.55) Dusty (0.48) Too clayey (0.13) 3.5 1.3% Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Wages (8%) Dusty (0.26) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Fort Collins (5%) Dusty (0.26) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Haverson, very rarely flooded (2%) Dusty (0.28) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 2.8 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.34) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Heldt (10%) Unstable excavation walls (0.55) Dusty (0.49) Too clayey (0.13) Wages (5%) Dusty (0.27) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 8.2 3.1% Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Nunn (85%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Heidi (10%) Dusty (0.42) 26.9 10.1% 72 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Unstable excavation walls (0.25) Too clayey (0.13) Satanta (5%) Dusty (0.31) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Olney loamy sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Dusty (0.00) 2.8 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 20.8 7.8% Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Olney (85%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 3.0 Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Renohill (85%) Unstable excavation walls (0.51) Dusty (0.39) Depth to soft bedrock (0.29) 1.9 0.7% Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Very limited Tassel (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (1.00) Slope (0.84) Dusty (0.05) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 5.6 2.1% Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (90%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.54) Dusty (0.28) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.5 0.2% Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (80%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.54) Dusty (0.28) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 0.8 0.3% Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Ulm (85%) Unstable excavation walls (0.51) 1.9 0.7% 73 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Dusty (0.39) Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes Very limited Valent (80%) Unstable excavation walls (1.00) 3.7 1.4% Vona loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Vona (85%) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) 30.4 11.4% Vona loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Vona (85%) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Ascalon (5%) Dusty (0.09) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Manter (5%) Dusty (0.02) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Olnest (3%) Dusty (0.08) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 9.6 3.6% Vona sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Vona (85%) Dusty (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 1.6 0.6% Vona sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Vona (85%) Dusty (0.03) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 3.5 1.3% Weld loam, 0 to 1 Somewhat percent slopes limited Weld (80%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (8%) Dusty (0.48) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Wiley (7%) Dusty (0.48) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Keith (3%) Dusty (0.36) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Baca (2%) Dusty (0.35) 2.6 1.0% 74 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 79 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Weld (80%) Dusty (0.33) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Adena (8%) Dusty (0.30) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (7%) Dusty (0.48) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Keith (3%) Dusty (0.36) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Baca (2%) Dusty (0.35) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 22.3 8.4% 81 Wiley -Colby complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Somewhat limited Wiley (60%) Dusty (0.50) Unstable excavation walls (D.01) Colby (30%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 2.6 1.0% 82 Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Somewhat limited Wiley (60%) Dusty (0.50) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (30%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 60.2 22.6% 83 Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes Somewhat limited Wiley (55%) Dusty (0.50) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) Colby (30%) Dusty (0.49) Unstable excavation walls (0.01) 17.0 6.4% 85 Water Not rated Water (95%) 0.2 0.1% 75 Custom Soil Resource Report Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Aquolls (5%) Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 266.4 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 266.4 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Somewhat limited 245.3 92.1% Very limited 20.9 7.8% Null or Not Rated 0.2 0.1% Totals for Area of Interest 266.4 100.0% Rating Options —Shallow Excavations (Segments B and C - South) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher 76 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segments B and C - South) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 77 Custom Soil Resource Report Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic -supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic -supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report —Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Segments B and C - South) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. 78 Custom Soil Resource Report The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Adams County Area, Parts of Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value UIC—Ulm loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Ulm 80 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.45 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.45 Shrink -swell 0.96 Too clayey 0.13 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 1—Altvan loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Altvan 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.28 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.28 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Aquolls 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Dusty 0.31 Frost action 0.50 Flooding 0.80 Depth to saturated zone 0.04 Depth to saturated zone 0.04 Dusty 0.31 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Aquents, gravelly substratum 30 Not rated Very limited Not rated Frost action 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.94 79 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 4-Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Aquolls 55 Not rated Very limited Very limited Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 0.80 Shrink -swell 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 Aquepts, flooded 25 Not rated Very limited Very limited Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 0.80 Shrink -swell 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Depth to saturated zone 0.48 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 6 —Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Ascalon 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.10 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.10 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 10 —Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded Ellicott, rarely flooded 65 Very limited Somewhat limited Very limited Low exchange capacity 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Unstable excavation walls 1.00 Droughty 1.00 Too sandy 0.50 Ellicott sandy- skeletal, rarely flooded 25 Very limited Somewhat limited Very limited Too sandy 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Unstable excavation walls 1.00 Low exchange capacity 1.00 Droughty 1.00 Gravel content 0.95 Large stones content 0.01 80 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 27 Heldt silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes Heldt 85 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited Too clayey 1.00 Shrink -swell 1.00 Unstable excavation walls 0.51 Dusty 0.50 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50 Too clayey 0.28 32 —Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 34 Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Kim 90 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Dusty 0.27 Dusty 0.27 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 81 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 35—Loup-Boel loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes Loup 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Droughty 0.69 Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Low exchange capacity 0.50 Boel 35 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Very limited Low exchange capacity 0.75 Frost action 0.50 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Droughty 0.69 Depth to saturated zone 0.04 Unstable excavation walls 0.68 Depth to saturated zone 0.04 39 —Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.77 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 40 —Nunn loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.77 Unstable excavation walls ❑.01 41 —Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.34 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.34 Shrink -swell 0.77 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 42 —Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Nunn 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.77 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 82 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 44 Olney loamy sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.01 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.01 47 —Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 48 —Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Olney 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Dusty 0.09 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 57—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Renohill 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.39 Shrink -swell 1.00 Unstable excavation walls 0.51 Depth to bedrock 0.29 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.39 Depth to soft bedrock 0.29 61 —Tassel fine sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Tassel 85 Very limited Somewhat limited Very limited Depth to bedrock 1.00 Depth to soft bedrock 1.00 Depth to soft bedrock 1.00 Droughty 0.99 Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Dusty 0.05 Low exchange capacity 0.75 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Dusty 0.05 83 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 64 Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Thedalund 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to bedrock 0.54 Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.54 Dusty 0.28 Dusty 0.28 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 65 Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Thedalund 80 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to bedrock 0.54 Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.54 Dusty 0.28 Dusty 0.28 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 67 Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Ulm 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.39 Shrink -swell 1.00 Unstable excavation walls 0.51 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.39 70 Valent sand, 3 to 9 percent slopes Valent 80 Very limited Not limited Very limited Low exchange capacity 1.00 Unstable excavation walls 1.00 Droughty 1.00 Too sandy 0.50 72 —Vona loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Vona 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.75 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 73 Vona loamy sand, 3 to 5 percent slopes Vona 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 84 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 76 Vona sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Vona 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.75 Dusty 0.03 Dusty 0.03 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 77 —Vona sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Vona 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.75 Dusty 0.03 Dusty 0.03 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 78 Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Weld 80 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.02 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 79 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Weld 80 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.33 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.33 Shrink -swell 0.01 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 81 —Wiley -Colby complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Wiley 60 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.50 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50 Shrink -swell 0A2 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Colby 30 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 85 Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 82 —Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Wiley 60 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.50 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.42 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Colby 30 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 83 —Wiley -Colby complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes Wiley 55 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.50 Low strength 1.00 Dusty 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.42 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 Colby 30 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Low exchange capacity 0.50 Low strength 0.22 Dusty 0.49 Dusty 0.49 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 85 —Water Water 95 Not rated Not rated Not rated 86 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid =nres 142 p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wpsiportal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/nationalflanduse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 87 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.govilnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 88 USDA United States Department of Agriculture N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Water Tank 1 I, 4. a a January 12, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portalfnres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://vvww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/contactusi? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part 13 4 —Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 13 65 Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 14 67—Thedalund-Keota loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes 15 Soil Information for All Uses 18 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 18 Building Site Development 18 Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) 18 Soil Reports 23 Building Site Development 23 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) 23 References 26 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 14 IR ° ° g45 504780 504790 504800 504810 504820 504830 504840 504850 5048) 40° 377N _ . . .. 40° 39'TN 1 1 til iii- } i .4 0 ti tte C p S .-- I 8 11 1 4 I I I I I I i 1 i . -: A f I lis - . tit . taw. .. .s: a _ fr • , 4r. all r . - . 1 41.1 I I i i 1: ill ® D Map may not be wwlid at this scale . . i 40° 39' 3' N I I I I I - 40° 3913' N 504780 504790 504800 504810 504820 504830 504840 504850 504860 N Map Scale: 1:598 if peed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. "' 8N Meters 0 5 10 20 30 g Feet 0 25 50 100 150 p pro? : VVeb Mertati r Corner coordinates: VVGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils r i O MAP LEGEND Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features t, J) Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot co Q 0 • Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Aug 10, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1.3 85.1% 65 Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes 0.0 0.6% 67 Thedalund-Keota loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes 0.2 14.4% Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or 11 Custom Soil Resource Report landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part 4 —Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t1p5 Elevation: 4,550 to 6,050 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Ascalon and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Ascalon Setting Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind -reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam Bt1 - 7 to 13 inches: sandy clay loam Bt2 - 13 to 18 inches: sandy clay loam Bk - 18 to 48 inches: sandy loam C - 48 to 80 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 1.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Olnest Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Otero Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: I nterfl uves Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 65 —Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 360p Elevation: 4,000 to 6,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 120 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Terry and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Terry Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous sandy residuum weathered from sandstone Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam H2 - 5 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 5 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam H3 - 17 to 32 inches: weathered bedrock 14 Custom Soil Resource Report H3 - 17 to 32 inches: H3 - 17 to 32 inches: H4 - 32 to 36 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Tassel Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Olney Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Renohill Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No 67—Thedalund-Keota loarns, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 360r Elevation: 3,500 to 6,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 45 percent Keota and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains, ridges, alluvial fans Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from siltstone and/or calcareous loamy residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H9 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 24 inches: loam H3 - 24 to 28 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Description of Keota Setting Landform: Plains, ridges, alluvial fans Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous loamy residuum weathered from siltstone Typical profile H9 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 35 inches: silt loam H3 - 35 to 39 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY009CO - Siltstone Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Epping Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Kim Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Shingle Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Mitchell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 17 Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. 18 Custom Soil Resource Report "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 19 Custom Soil Resource Report 3 7* Map—Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) N on °v o 5:47B3 504790 504800 504810 504EQ0 504830 504840 504850 504860 40° 39'TN I 40° 39 T N R fil 4i, t k i I _, 8 -- 8 1 1.? .i ,i : • s; ii p - i it 1 ' - - a 6 li- Ft I I y�5 i ' lit - 111I It! te samr65' i Sr , . f 4) % . o •, oaU Map may hot be- wffilid at this scale . 40° 39'YN I i I I 40° 3g 7N 504780 504790 504800 504810 504820 504830 504840 50489J S ) 3 Map Scale: 1 :598 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. ER N Meters 0 5 10 20 30 it Feet Q 25 50 100 150 Map projection: Web Mir Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: LJTM Zone 13N VVGS84 20 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines .0.5,0011 r • Very limited Somewhat limited - Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 0 Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation .-f.__r Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 Aug 10, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Tables —Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Not limited Ascalon (85%) 1.3 85.1% Olnest (8%) Otero (7%) 65 Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Terry (85%) Slope (0.52) 0.0 0.6% 67 Thedalund-Keota foams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Thedalund (45%) Slope (0.52) 0.2 14.4% Shrink -swell (0.50) Keota (30%) Slope (0.52) Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Not limited 1.3 85.1% Somewhat limited 0.2 14.9% Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0% Rating Options —Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 23 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report —Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Water Tank) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] 24 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings -Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 4 -Ascalon fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes Ascalon 85 Not limited Not limited Not limited 65 —Terry sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes Terry 85 Not limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to soft bedrock 0.29 Slope 0.52 67—Thedalund-Keota loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Thedalund 45 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Shrink -swell 0.50 Depth to soft bedrock 0.90 Slope 0.52 Shrink -swell 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.50 Keota 30 Not limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Depth to soft bedrock 0A0 Slope 0.52 25 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid =nres 142 p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wpsiportal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/nationalflanduse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 26 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.govilnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 27 USDA United States Department of Agriculture N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Pump Station 1 January 12, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portalfnres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://vvww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/contactusi? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 13 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 13 13 Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 14 53 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 16 Soil Information for All Uses 18 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 18 Building Site Development 18 Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) 18 Soil Reports 23 Building Site Development 23 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) 23 References 26 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 40° 20' 57 N 40° 20' 57' N Map Scale: 1:1,120 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. A 505330 505350 cnc370 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 5O5410 505410 Meters N 0 15 30 60 90 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 505430 9 505470 505510 505510 505530 kr ° g 0 1 0 40° 20 57" N 40° 20' 52" N Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 O Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features V Blowout >1 is; Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot • Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation 444 Rails oV Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 10 MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018 Aug 12, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded D.1 1.6% 13 Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes 0.7 16.1% 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes 3.7 82.3% Totals for Area of Interest 4.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The 11 Custom Soil Resource Report delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3621 Elevation: 3,600 to 4,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F Frost -free period: 100 to 165 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent Aquepts, flooded, and similar soils: 25 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Aquolls Setting Landform: Drainageways, plains, depressions Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile 14.1 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Aquepts, Flooded Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H9 - 0 to 8 inches: variable H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: FrequentNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY038CO - Wet Meadow Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Thedalund Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 13—Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361 n Elevation: 4,600 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 13 inches 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Mean annual air temperature: 52 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 120 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cascajo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cascajo Setting Landform: Ridges, terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous gravelly alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 9 to 31 inches: extremely gravelly sandy loam H3 - 31 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 25 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY063CO - Gravel Breaks Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Renohill Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Samsil Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No 15 Custom Soil Resource Report 53 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3632 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Cushman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. 18 Custom Soil Resource Report "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 19 40° 20157“ N 1 40° 20' 52" N Q 505330 535350 L Custom Soil Resource Report Map Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) 505390 V Sillil San, `' . Soil Map may rue"; lie valid at this scale. ft 49 kr 505330 505350 I I 505370 505.390 Map Scale: 1:1,120 if punted on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet S N 0 15 30 60 505430 535450 505410 �, : y ' ;. ;et • I I I 535410 505430 505450 505470 505470 Meters 90 Feet 0 50 1(X) 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Come- coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 20 505490 County Road 50 505493 506510 505610 936530 535530 505550 I 506560 3 O 40° 2757N 40° 20' 52" N Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AO!) Background The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) Aerial Photography Soils Soil Rating Polygons Very limited [1 u Li Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Very limited • . Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points ® Very limited Somewhat limited 0 Not limited 0 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018 Aug 12, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Tables —Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Very limited Aquolls (55%) Flooding (1.00) 0.1 1.6% Depth to saturated zone (0.81) Shrink -swell (0.50) Aquepts, flooded (25%) Flooding (1.00) Depth to saturated zone (0.81) Shrink -swell (0.50) 13 Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Very limited Cascajo (85%) Slope (1.00) 0.7 16.1% 53 Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Somewhat limited Otero (85%) Slope (0.88) 3.7 82.3% Totals for Area of Interest 4.5 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Somewhat limited 3.7 82.3% Very limited 0.8 17.7% Totals for Area of Interest 4.5 100.0% Rating Options —Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff.. None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 23 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report —Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 1) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] 24 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 4-Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded Aquolls 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.81 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.81 Shrink -swell 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.50 Aquepts, flooded 25 Very limited Very limited Very limited Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.81 Depth to saturated zone 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.81 Shrink -swell 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.50 Shrink -swell 0.50 13—Cascajo gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes Cascajo 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Very limited Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Slope 1.00 53 —Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Otero 85 Not limited Not limited Somewhat limited Slope 0.88 25 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid =nres 142 p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wpsiportal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/nationalflanduse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 26 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.govilnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 27 USDA United States Dism epartment of Agriculture NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Pump Station 2 January 12, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portalfnres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://vvww.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/contactusi? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 13 67 —Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 13 Soil Information for All Uses 15 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 15 Building Site Development 15 Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) 15 Soil Reports 20 Building Site Development 20 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) 20 References 23 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 40° 0' 7' N 40° 0' 0 N 4 503090 509080 N A 508110 508110 503140 l 508140 508170 508170 Map Scale: 1:1,510 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. 0 20 40 80 508200 508200 508230 50826() 508290 *Ave, Mh.ww•• wxi • N.' Y^ -m. r "" --Iwryor'.•Tr PM Meters 120 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner 000rdinab?s: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 508230 9 508260 508290 5O3320 508350 503350 508380 508380 40° 0' 7" N 4 40° 0' 0„ N Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0- 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features t,, Blowout •• O A. Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 3, 2018 Dec 4, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 67 Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 8.6 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 8.6 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 67 —Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363k Elevation: 5,070 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 105 to 120 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Ulm and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ulm Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits derived from shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: clay loam H2 - 5 to 17 inches: clay H3 - 17 to 60 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Renohill Percent of map unit: 11 percent Hydric soil rating: No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Heldt Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. 15 Custom Soil Resource Report "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. 16 40° 0'TN 40° 0' 0" N 508080 508110 l 509140 1 Maplinziy not be valid zit this sca 4 508080 N A 508110 508140 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) 508170 1 508170 Map Sole: 1:1,510 if printed on A landscape (11"x 8.5") sheet.. 508700 I 509200 0 20 40 80 Meters 120 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone UN WGS84 508730 509230 17 508780 I 509260 508790 l 508790 509320 508350 l 509380 l 508380 Tn 104° 54' 5" W 40° 0.71.N N 40° 010•N Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons r u Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines i • i Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points r Very limited Somewhat limited Not limited Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation 4 -I -t Rails ruse Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 3, 2018 Dec 4, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 18 Custom Soil Resource Report Tables —Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 67 Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Very limited Ulm (85%) Shrink -swell (1.00) 8.6 100.0% Slope (0.00) Totals for Area of Interest 8.6 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Very limited 8.6 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 8.6 100.0% Rating Options —Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 20 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report —Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Pump Station 2) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings -Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 67 Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Ulm 85 Very limited Very limited Very limited Shrink -swell 1.00 Shrink -swell 1.00 Shrink -swell 1.00 Slope 0.01 22 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid =nres 142 p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wpsiportal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/nationalflanduse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 23 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.govilnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 24 Hello