The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20191973.tiffDATE: COLORADO Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St. Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RECEIVED JUN 042010 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTICE Consideration of 112c Construction Materials Reclamation Permit Application May 30, 2019 TO: Weld County Commissioners 915 10th St Greeley, CO 80631 RE: DPG Pit, File No. M-2019-028 Please be advised that on May 30, 2019, J 2 Contracting Co., whose address and telephone number are 105 Coronado Ct. Unit A-101, Fort Collins, CO 80525; (970) 392-0694, filed an application to conduct a(n) Blank - future update mining and reclamation operation, at or near Section 11, Township 5N, Range 65W, 6th Principle Meridian, in Weld County. Please be advised that the permit area may be located in more than one Section, Township, and Range. Affected lands will be reclaimed to support a post -mining land use. The application decision date is scheduled for August 28, 2019. A copy of the application is available for review at the Weld County Clerk & Recorder's office and at the office of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The application, as well as all other permit documents, can be found at http://drmsweblink.state.co.us/ by searching M2019028 in the "Permit No" field. A user guide is available to help first time users of the imaged document system and can be viewed at http://mining.state.co. us/SiteCollectionDocuments/Laserfische%20User%20Guide.pdf. To be considered in the review process, comments or objections on the application must be submitted in writing within twenty (20) days of the date of the last newspaper public notice. You should contact the applicant for the newspaper publication date. The Office will assume you have no comment or objection to the proposed activity if none are received by the end of the public comment period. If you need additional information or have any questions regarding the above -named application, please contact Eric Scott at the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80203, by telephone at 303-866-3567 x 8140, or by email at Eric.scott@state.co.us. M -AP -05M 1313 Sherman St. Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 P (303) 866-3567 F (303) 832-8106 https://mining.state.co.us P1/4.)bV% e. Revieu,) Jared Polis, Governor I Dan Gibbs, Executive Director I Virginia Brannon, Director C0�12%I �! Gc..PLGTa) owc.1MleRic;j ,� CoMli9 1876`. 201°1 -t crl Date: May 20, 2019 Job Name: DPG Pit J&T Consulting, Inc. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL File No:18114 To Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street Greeley. CO 80632 Attention: To whom it may concern WE ARE SENDING YOU: RECEIVED MAY 212019 WELD COUNTY ^nnntutlSsloNERS Phone: 970-336-7204 Fax: 970-336-7233 x 4021 Copies Cescription 1 = Notice of Filing Application for Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit - DPG Pit THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For Approval IIFor your use i i _ As requested For review and comment nFor Bids Due i _ i _ i Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Other: REMARKS: Resubmit Submit Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints To whom it may concern, Please find attached a Notice of Filing Application for Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit for the DPG Pit. The application form is also attached for your reference. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Regards, J.C. York Copy To: File Signed: V 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D • Fort Lupton, CO 8234 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 }'UOV‘ C CC'.,PLC c0),Pu.A. JMIecIc`h ILK) 512 c 1 ► Q 512211R 2019-1973 NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION FOR COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT FOR REGULAR (112) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS EXTRACTION OPERATION NOTICE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Weld COUNTY J-2 Contracting co. (the "Applicant/Operator") has applied for a Regular (112) reclamation permit from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (the "Board") to conduct the extraction of construction materials operations in Weld County. The attached information is being provided to notify you of the location and nature of the proposed operation. The entire application is on file with the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (the "Division") and the local county clerk and recorder. The applicant/operator proposes to reclaim the affected land to Developed Water Resource use. Pursuant to Section 34-32.5-116(4)(m), C.R.S., the Board may confer with the local Board of County Commissioners before approving of the post -mining land use. Accordingly, the Board would appreciate your comments on the proposed operation. Please note that, in order to preserve your right to a hearing before the Board on this application, you must submit written comments on the application within twenty (20) days of the date of last publication of notice pursuant to Section 34-32.5-112(10), C.R.S. If you would like to discuss the proposed post -mining land use, or any other issue regarding this application, please contact the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. NOTE TO APPLICANT/OPERATOR: You must attach a copy of the application form to this notice. If this is a notice of a change to a previously filed application you must either attach a copy of the changes, or attach a complete and accurate description of the change. J&T Consulting, Inc. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: May 20, 2019 File No:18114 Job Name: DPG Pit To: Weld County Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80632 Attention: Clerk to the Board WE ARE SENDING YOU: Phone: 970-336-7204 Fax: 970-336-7233 x 4021 Copies Description DPG Pit - Application for a Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit for a Regular (112) Construction 1 Materials Extraction Operation RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2019 WELD COUNTY OMMlSSJONERS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ■ For Approval For your use As requested For review and comment For Bids Due REMARKS: Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Other: Resubmit copies for approval Submit copies for distribution Return corrected prints Please find attached a copy of an application for a Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit for a Regular (112) Construction Materials Extraction Operation for the DPG Pit to be filed for public review. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Regards, J.C. York Copy To: File Signed: 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D • Fort Lupton, CO 80234 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 Application for: DRMS 112 Reclamation Operation DPG Pit J-2 Contracting Co. 105 Coronado Ct. Unit A-101 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone: 970-392-0694 Fax: 970-392-0695 Prepared By: J&T Consulting, Inc. 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Ph: 303-857-6222 / Fax: 303-857-6224 www.j-tconsulting.com STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REGULAR (112) OPERATION RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION FORM COLORADO DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING SAFETY CHECK ONE: n There is a File Number Already Assigned to this Operation Permit # M - - (Please reference the file number currently assigned to this operation) 171 New Application (Rule 1.4.5) El Amendment Application (Rule 1.10) Conversion Application (Rule 1.11) Permit # M - (provide for Amendments and Conversions of existing permits) The application for a Construction Materials Regular 112 Operation Reclamation Permit contains three major parts: (1) the application form; (2) Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, any sections of Exhibit 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability Exhibit; and (3) the application fee. When you submit your application, be sure to include one (1) complete signed and notarized ORIGINAL and one (1) copy of the completed application form, two (2) copies of Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, appropriate sections of 6.5 (Geotechnical Stability Exhibit, and a check for the application fee described under Section (4) below. Exhibits should NOT be bound or in a 3 -ring binder; maps should be folded to 8 1/2" X 11" or 8 1/2" X 14" size. To expedite processing, please provide the information in the format and order described in this form. GENERAL OPERATION INFORMATION Type or print clearly, in the space provided, ALL information requested below. 1. Applicant/operator or company name (name to be used on permit): J-2 Contracting Co. 1.1 Type of organization (corporation, partnership, etc.): Corporation 2. Operation name (pit, mine or site name): 3. Permitted acreage (new or existing site): 3.1 Change in acreage (+) 3.2 Total acreage in Permit area DPG Pit 4. Fees: 4.1 New Application 4.2 New Quarry Application 4.4 Amendment Fee 4.5 Conversion to 112 operation (set by statute) 5. Primary commoditie(s) to be mined: Sand Gravel 5.1 Incidental commoditie(s) to be mined: 1. 3. / lbs/Tons/yr lbs/Tons/yr 2. 228.02 228.02 228.02 permitted acres acres acres $2,696.00 $3,342.00 $2,229.00 $2,696.00 4. / lbs/Tons/yr 5. / 5.2 Anticipated end use of primary commoditie(s) to be mined: Construction Aggregates 5.3 Anticipated end use of incidental commoditie(s) to be mined: N/A application fee quarry application amendment fee conversion fee lbs/Tons/yr lbs/Tons/yr -2- 6. Name of owner of subsurface rights of affected land: DPG Farms, LLC If 2 or more owners, "refer to Exhibit O". 7. Name of owner of surface of affected land: DPG Farms, LLC 8. Type of mining operation: Surface Underground 9. Location Information: The center of the area where the majority of mining will occur: COUNTY: Weld PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (check one): SECTION (write number): TOWNSHIP (write number and check direction): RANGE (write number and check direction): QUARTER SECTION (check one): QUARTER/QUARTER SECTION (check one): 6th (Colorado) 10th (New Mexico) Ute S11 T 5 North El South R 65 ri l East West EN1E l NE rimv SE[t�• ] SW SW GENERAL DESCRIPTION: (the number of miles and direction from the nearest town and the approximate elevation): 2 miles west and 2 miles north of Kersey, CO. Elevation = 4600 10. Primary Mine Entrance Location (report in either Latitude/Longitude OR UTM): Latitude/Longitude: Example: (N) (W) 39° 44' 12.98" 104° 59' 3.87" Latitude (N): deg 40 min 24 sec 50 36 (2 decimal places) Longitude (W): deg -104 min 37 sec 19 .33 (2 decimal places) OR Example: (N) 39.73691° (W) -104.98449° Latitude (N) (5 decimal places) Longitude(W) (5 decimal places) OR Universal Tranverse Mercator (UTM) Example: 201336.3 E NAD27 Zone 13 4398351.2 N UTM Datum (specify NAD27, NAD83 or WGS 84) Nad 83 Zone 13 Easting Northing -3- 11. Correspondence Information: APPLICANT/OPERATOR (name, address, and phone of name to be used on permit) Chris Leone Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: PERMITTING CONTACT Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: INSPECTION CONTACT Contact's Name: Company Name: Street/P.O. Box: City: State: Telephone Number: Fax Number: J 2 Contracting Co. Title: Owner 105 Coronado Ct. Unit A-101 Fort Collins P.O. Box: Colorado (970 ) _ 392-0694 (970 ) _ 392-0695 (if different from applicant/operator above) J.C. York J&T Consulting, Inc. Zip Code: 80525 Title: Principal/Owner 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton P.O. Box: Colorado (303 _ 857-6222 (303 ) _ 857-6224 Zip Code: 80621 Same As Applicant/Operator Title: P.O. Box: Zip Code: ( )- ( )- CC: STATE OR FEDERAL LANDOWNER (if any) N/A Agency: Street: City: State: Zip Code: Telephone Number: ( ) - CC: STATE OR FEDERAL LANDOWNER (if any) N/A Agency: Street: City: State: Telephone Number: Zip Code: -4- 12. Primii future (Post -mining) land use (check one): Cropland(CR) Pastureland(PL) El Rangeland(RL) ji Forestry(FR) Residential(RS) Recreation(RC) flDeveloped Water Resources(WR) 13. Primary present land use (check one Cropland(CR) Rangeland(RL) BResidential(RS) Developed Water Resources(WR) Pastureland(PL) Forestry(FR) Recreation(RC) IiGeneral Agriculture(GA) fil Wildlife Habitat(WL) Industrial/Commercial(IC) EISolid Waste Disposal(WD) HGeneral Agriculture(GA) Wildlife Habitat(WL) IIIndustrial/Commercial(IC) 14. Method of Mining: Briefly explain mining method (e.g. truck/shovel): Excavation by Excavator, Loader, or Dozer and taken to processing area via haul trucks and/or conveyor. 15. On Site Processing: Crushing/Screening 13.1 Briefly explain mining method (e.g. truck/shovel): On -site crushing/screening fed by loader. List any designated chemicals or acid -producing materials to be used or stored within permit area: N/A 16. Description of Amendment or Conversion: If you are amending or converting an existing operation, provide a brief narrative describing the proposed change(s). N/A -5 - Maps and Exhibits: Two (2) complete, unbound application packages must be submitted. One complete application package consists of a signed application form and the set of maps and exhibits referenced below as Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, and the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit. Each exhibit within the application must be presented as a separate section. Begin each exhibit on a new page. Pages should be numbered consecutively for ease of reference. If separate documents are used as appendices, please reference these by name in the exhibit. With each of the two (2) signed application forms, you must submit a corresponding set of the maps and exhibits as described in the following references to Rule 6.4, 6.5, and 1.6.2(1)(b): EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT N EXHIBIT O EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT Q EXHIBIT R EXHIBIT S Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) Rule 6.5 Legal Description Index Map Pre -Mining and Mining Plan Map(s) of Affected Lands Mining Plan Reclamation Plan Reclamation Plan Map Water Information Wildlife Information Soils Information Vegetation Information Climate Information Reclamation Costs Other Permits and Licenses Source of Legal Right -To -Enter Owners of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners of Substance to be Mined Municipalities Within Two Miles Proof of Mailing of Notices to County Commissioners and Conservation District Proof of Filing with County Clerk or Recorder Permanent Man -Made Structures ADDENDUM 1 = Notice Requirements (sample enclosed) Geotechnical Stability Exhibit (any required sections) The instructions for preparing Exhibits A -S, Addendum 1, and Geotechnical Stability Exhibit are specified under Rule 6.4 and 6.5 and Rule I.6.2(1)(b) of the Rules and Regulations. If you have any questions on preparing the Exhibits or content of the information required, or would like to schedule a pre -application meeting you may contact the Office at 303-866-3567. Responsibilities as a Permittee: Upon application approval and permit issuance, this application becomes a legally binding document. Therefore, there are a number of important requirements which you, as a permittee, should fully understand. These requirements are listed below. Please read and initial each requirement, in the space provided, to acknowledge that you understand your obligations. If you do not understand these obligations then please contact this Office for a full explanation. 1. Your obligation to reclaim the site is not limited to the amount of the financial warranty. You assume legal liability for all reasonable expenses which the Board or the Office may incur to reclaim the affected lands associated with your mining operation in the event your permit is revoked and financial warranty is forfeited; -6_ 2. The Board may suspend or revoke this permit, or assess a civil penalty, upon a finding that the permittee violated the terms or conditions of this permit, the Act, the Mineral Rules and Regulations, or that information contained in the application or your permit misrepresent important material facts; C-� 3. If your mining and reclamation operations affect areas beyond the boundaries of an approved permit boundary, substantial civil penalties, to you as permittee can result; 4. Any modification to the approved mining and reclamation plan from those described in your approved application requires you to submit a permit modification and obtain approval from the Board or Office; 5. It is your responsibility to notify the Office of any changes in your address or phone number; 6. Upon permit issuance and prior to beginning on -site mining activity, you must post a sign at the entrance of the mine site, which shall be clearly visible from the access road, with the following information (Rule 3.1.12): a. the name of the operator; b. a statement that a reclamation permit for the operation has been issued by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board; and, c. the permit number. ___ 7. The boundaries of the permit boundary area must be marked by monuments or other markers that are clearly visible and adequate to delineate such boundaries prior to site disturbance. 8. It is a provision of this permit that the operations will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions listed in your application, as well as with the provisions of the Act and the Construction Material Rules and Regulations in effect at the time the permit is issued. 9. Annually, on the anniversary date of permit issuance, you must submit an annual fee as specified by Statute, and an annual report which includes a map describing the acreage affected and the acreage reclaimed to date -(if there are changes from the previous year), any monitoring required by the Reclamation Plan to be submitted annually on the anniversary date of the permit approval. Annual fees are for the previous year a permit is held. For example, a permit with the anniversary date of July 1, 1995, the annual fee is for the period of July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Failure to submit your annual fee and report by the permit anniversary date may result in a civil penalty, revocation of your permit, and forfeiture of your financial warranty. It is your responsibility, as the permittee, to continue to pay your annual fee to the Office until the Board releases you from your total reclamation responsibility. 10. For joint venture/nartnership operators: the signing representative is authorized to sign this document and a power of attorney (provided by the partner(s)) authorizing the signature of the representative is attached to this application. -7 - NOTE TO COMMENTORS/OBJECTORS: It is likely there will be additions, changes, and deletions to this document prior to final decision by the Office. Therefore, if you have any comments or concerns you must contact the applicant or the Office prior to the decision date so that you will know what changes may have been made to the application document. The Office is not allowed to consider comments, unless they are written, and received prior to the end of the public comment period. You should contact the applicant for the final date of the public comment period. If you have questions about the Mined Land Reclamation Board and Office's review and decision or appeals process, you may contact the Office at (303) 866-3567. -8 - Certification: As an authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby certify that the operation described has met the minimum requirements of the following terms and conditions: 1. To the best of my knowledge, all significant, valuable and permanent man-made structure(s) in existence at the time this application is filed, and located within 200 feet of the proposed affected area have been identified in this application (Section 34-32.5-115(4)(e), C.R.S.). 2. No mining operation will be located on lands where such operations are prohibited by law (Section 34-32.5-115(4)(f), C.R.S.; 3. As the applicant/operator, I do not have any extraction/exploration operations in the State of Colorado currently in violation of the provisions of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials (Section 34-32.5-120, C.R.S.) as determined through a Board finding. 4. I understand that statements in the application are being made under penalty of perjury and that false statements made herein are punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to Section 18-8-503, C.R.S. This form has been approved by the Mined Land Reclamation Board pursuant to section 34-32.5-112,CR.S., of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials. Any alteration or modfcation of this form shall result in voiding any permit issued on the altered or modified form and subject the operator to cease and desist orders and civil penalties for operating without a permit pursuant to section 34-32.5-123, CRS. TN /�/j Signed and dated this �/ day of / 'AS/ r��q (..;,Nrt AC t,1 Co • Applicant/Operator or Cgm�any Name Sign Title: E52DE1dr State of g4,2tot6 ) ) ss. County of ty_rrx /- ) If Corporation Attest (Seal) The foregoing, i ,, ment was acknowledged before me th' / 7 day of &k� by f X,i' c ,C &'11.C as -�'sl"4. CAROL L SHIMA sT CC ADo MY Artig Signed: Corporate Secretary or Equivalent Town/City/County Clerk Notary Public My Commission expires SIGNATURES MUST BE IN BLUE INK You must post sufficient Notices at the location of the proposed mine site to clearly identify the site as the location of a J.2 CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC PO BOX 129 GREELEY, CO 80632 Pay to the777,„ Order of / x'vs' avaf" VERUS Bank of Commerce Fort Collins, CO www.wnaboecom ForePF/Zrrrr7' EXHIBIT A Legal Description A tract of land located in the north 1/2 of section 12, and the southwest % of northeast corner of section 11, township 5 north, range 65 west of the 6th p.m., and the south 1/2 section of section 1, township 5 north, range 65 west of the 6th p.m., Weld County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Considering the west line of said northwest 1/4 of said section 12 to bear N00°027'58"W with all other bearings contained herein being relative thereto; The true point of beginning the west 1/4 corner of said section 12; Thence, S 88° 35' 10" W for a distance of 607.32 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 12° 51' 36.0", having a radius of 995.05 feet, and whose long chord bears N 27° 17' 25" E for a distance of 222.87 feet; Thence, N 33° 43' 14" E for a distance of 596.27 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 33° 43' 14" E for a distance of 403.69 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 19° 08' 46" E for a distance of 639.15 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 85° 32' 07" E for a distance of 30.00 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 04° 01' 12.0", having a radius of 1298.69 feet, and whose long chord bears N 02° 33' 41" E for a distance of 91.10 feet to a point of intersection with a non -tangential line; Thence, N 00° 33' 12" E for a distance of 261.21 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 86° 49' 34" E for a distance of 33.38 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 64° 19' 17" E for a distance of 96.06 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 41° 46' 48" E for a distance of 78.16 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 32° 44' 56" E for a distance of 53.39 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 41° 27' 01" E for a distance of 89.97 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 37° 18' 57" E for a distance of 100.77 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 22° 37' 19" E for a distance of 92.58 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 20° 46' 55" E for a distance of 105.23 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 21° 13' 40" E for a distance of 155.65 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 16° 45' 23" E for a distance of 89.69 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 35° 34' 55" E for a distance of 44.74 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 26° 26' 57" E for a distance of 41.76 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 25° 55' 19" E for a distance of 40.22 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 46° 14' 32" E for a distance of 95.60 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 68° 29' 07" E for a distance of 49.62 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 61° 06' 00" E for a distance of 106.14 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 53° 25' 44" E for a distance of 46.89 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 61° 26' 34" E for a distance of 89.57 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 75° 53' 20" E for a distance of 48.30 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 86° 25' 15" E for a distance of 125.24 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 60° 37' 24" E for a distance of 142.12 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 54° 37' 32" E for a distance of 80.48 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 51° 42' 28" E for a distance of 176.15 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 78° 29' 24" E for a distance of 63.29 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 82° 52' 39" E for a distance of 74.71 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 54° 08' 46" E for a distance of 54.69 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 50° 06' 06" E for a distance of 69.69 feet to a point on a line; J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application Thence, N 27° 55' 08" E for a distance of 49.49 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 19° 58' 53" E for a distance of 148.39 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 65° 49' 07" E for a distance of 135.71 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 87° 40' 04" E for a distance of 115.87 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 63° 56' 25" E for a distance of 86.10 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 72° 11' 46" E for a distance of 80.96 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 65° 18' 16" E for a distance of 223.03 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 81° 42' 48" E for a distance of 78.01 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 85° 54' 57" E for a distance of 48.03 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 77° 05' 46" E for a distance of 94.60 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 88° 08' 39" E for a distance of 126.48 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 74° 40' 30" E for a distance of 338.40 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 76° 54' 00.0", having a radius of 425.00 feet, and whose long chord bears N 36° 13' 28" E for a distance of 528.56 feet; Thence, N 02° 13' 34" W for a distance of 200.95 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 17° 39' 00.0", having a radius of 74.99 feet, and whose long chord bears N 06° 35' 57" E for a distance of 23.01 feet; Thence, N 15° 25' 27" E for a distance of 139.46 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 90° 00' 00" E for a distance of 569.58 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 01° 59' 30" E for a distance of 265.71 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 87° 35' 13" E for a distance of 905.49 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 01° 42' 15" W for a distance of 25.00 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 23° 32' 12" W for a distance of 261.68 feet to a point on.a line; Thence, S 51° 20' 56" W for a distance of 140.26 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 23° 50' 52" W for a distance of 586.60 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 23° 50' 52" W for a distance of 518.90 feet to a point oh a line; Thence, S 12° 32' 55" E for a distance of 919.49 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 12° 41' 15" E for a distance of 24.05 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 75° 25' 54" W for a distance of 889.89 feet to the beginning of a curve; Said curve turning to the right through 42° 09' 36.0", having a radius of 20.00 feet, and whose long chord bears N 83° 29' 17" W for a distance of 14.39 feet to the beginning of a non - tangential curve; Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 44° 21' 00.0", having a radius of 50.00 feet, and whose long chord bears N 40° 14' 00" W for a distance of 37.74 feet; Thence, N 18° 03' 31" W for a distance of 109.66 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 87° 11' 24.0", having a radius of 7.00 feet, and whose long chord bears N 61° 39' 11" W for a distance of 9.65 feet; Thence, S 74° 45' 09" W for a distance of 5.25 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 87° 10' 12.0", having a radius of 7.00 feet, and whose long chord bears S 31° 10' 10" W for a distance of 9.65 feet; Thence, S 12° 24' 49" E for a distance of 129.27 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 87° 51' 00.0", having a radius of 20.00 feet, and whose long chord bears S 31° 30' 32" W for a distance of 27.75 feet; Thence, S 75° 25' 54" W for a distance of 16.15 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 72° 19' 41" W for a distance of 356.86 feet to a point on a line; Thence, N 70° 11' 44" W for a distance of 661.11 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 19° 45' 00.0", having a radius of 100.00 feet, and whose long chord bears N 57° 47' 09" W for a distance of 34.30 feet; Thence, N 47° 54' 40" W for a distance of 26.70 feet to the beginning of a curve, J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 16° 39' 36.0", having a radius of 99.98 feet, and whose long chord bears N 56° 14' 24" W for a distance of 28.97 feet; Thence, N 64° 34' 09" W for a distance of 66.72 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 52° 46' 12.0", having a radius of 80.00 feet, and whose long chord bears S 89° 02' 53" W for a distance of 71.10 feet; Thence, S 62° 39' 55" W for a distance of 109.27 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 01° 25' 48.0", having a radius of 1000.90 feet, and whose long chord bears S 61° 56' 58" W for a distance of 24.98 feet to a point of intersection with a non -tangential line; Thence, S 61° 14' 02" W for a distance of 416.19 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 49° 40' 12.0", having a radius of 20.00 feet, and whose long chord bears S 86° 27' 33" W for a distance of 16.80 feet; Thence, N 68° 42' 27" W for a distance of 13.66 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 30° 22' 12.0", having a radius of 20.00 feet, and whose long chord bears N 83° 53' 40" W for a distance of 10.48 feet; Thence, S 80° 55' 07" W for a distance of 4.12 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 37° 51' 00.0", having a radius of 20.00 feet, and whose long chord bears S 61° 59' 39" W for a distance of 12.97 feet; Thence, S 43° 04' 11" W for a distance of 8.68 feet to a point on a line. Thence, S 34° 03' 05" W for a distance of 0.95 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 36° 13' 12.0", having a radius of 99.99 feet, and whose long chord bears S 52° 09' 36" W for a distance of 62.16 feet; Thence, S 70° 16' 07" W for a distance of 127.93 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 15° 01' 48.0", having a radius of 299.92 feet, and whose long chord bears S 77° 46' 54" W for a distance of 78.45 feet; Thence, S 85° 17'41" W for a distance of 24.29 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 16° 00' 36.0", having a radius of 500.04 feet, and whose long chord bears S 77° 17' 21" W for a distance of 139.27 feet; Thence, S 69° 17' 01" W for a distance of 174.01 feet to a point on a line; Thence, S 84° 50' 09" W for a distance of 114.13 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 12° 53' 24.0", having a radius of 300.09 feet, and whose long chord bears S 78° 23' 21" W for a distance of 67.37 feet; Thence, S 71° 56' 33" W for a distance of 29.14 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 19° 16' 12.0", having a radius of 299.96 feet, and whose long chord bears S 62° 18' 31" W for a distance of 100.41 feet; Thence, S 52° 40' 30" W for a distance of 22.16 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 09° 01' 12.0", having a radius of 299.87 feet, and whose long chord bears S 48° 10' 00" W for a distance of 47.16 feet; Thence, S 43° 39' 30" W for a distance of 67.95 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 06° 57' 36.0", having a radius of 499.92 feet, and whose long chord bears S 41° 00' 10" W for a distance of 60.69 feet; Thence, S 37° 31' 24" W for a distance of 72.28 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 15° 27' 36.0", having a radius of 499.94 feet, and whose long chord bears S 30° 36' 20" W for a distance of 134.49 feet; Thence, S 22° 52' 36" W for a distance of 197.28 feet to the beginning of a non -tangential curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 18° 10' 12.0", having a radius of 50.00 feet, and whose long chord bears S 33° 42' 08" W for a distance of 15.79 feet; Thence, S 42° 47' 06" W for a distance of 4.18 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the left through an angle of 10° 32' 24.0", having a radius of 50.03 feet, and whose long chord bears S 37° 30' 52" W for a distance of 9.19 feet; LI MT Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application Thence, S 32° 14' 38" W for a distance of 28.65 feet to the beginning of a curve, Said curve turning to the right through an angle of 10° 37' 48.0", having a radius of 249.92 feet, and whose long chord bears S 37° 33' 24" W for a distance of 46.30 feet; Thence S 42° 52' 10" W a distance of 371.30 feet; Thence, N 88° 47' 03" W for a distance of 430.72 feet to a point on a line; to the true point of beginning. SAID TRACT CONTAINS 228.02 ACRES MORE OR LESS. The proposed mine entrance coordinates are as follows: Latitude (N) 40°24'50.36" Longitude (W) -104°37'19.33" J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT B Vicinity Map See attached map. riJET Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application P:\18114 DPG Mining Site urawings'JT-Vicinity.dwg, 3/4/2019 10:15:25 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 2000 1000 0 2000 SCALE IN FEET llJ&T Consulting, Inc. Sil 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 303-857-6222 J-2 CONTRACTING DPG Site Vicinity Map Date: 3.4.19 Job No: 181 1 4 Drawn: WSS Scale: 1" = 1000' Sheet: 1 Of: 1 EXHIBIT C Pre-Mining/Mining Plan Map See attached map. JoT Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application nUT.mimng C-1.Ewg. Pre -Mining Map. 5408019 3 37 31 PM P118114 Bt 1l DPG Mining Sae \DravngsWln \-\\\\XXAv`�A\V\\\VAN v^Nv N• PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOURS (1' INTERVALS) EXISTING EASEMENT GRAVEL ROAD EXISTING DITCH/RIVER PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARY JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND CULTIVATED CROP FARM LAND PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET: ;NAME ASSESSORS I.D. NO. WELD COUNTY 1150 0 STREET GREELEY, CO 80631 ROADIFER CATHERINE 3791 E. 18TH ST GREELEY, CO 80631 MATHEWS FAMILY ENTERPRISES 3791 E. 18TH ST GREELEY, CO 80631 GOZA CALVENT 1620 HOLLY AVE GREELEY, CO 80634 VEGETAT ON NOTE: ALL NON -WETLAND AREAS ARE HISTORICALLY CULTIVATED CROP LAND. VEGETATIVE SPECIES ARE PRIMARILY CHEATGRASS, KOCHIA, SMOOTH BROME WESTERN WHEATGRASS, AND VARIOUS RUDERAL FORE SPECIES. 096101000050 096111100010 096111400009 096111400001 096112200012 TOTAL PERMIT AREA = 228.02 AC TOTAL MINING AREA = 190.37 AC Job# 18114 Date 4/4/19 Drawn By WSS & BDC Designed By TPY Checked By JCY File JT-Mining scale 1" = 250't 1t DPG Min ng StlelDrewngsUMm ng PIanU7.min ng C•2.dvg Pre -Mining Map (1). 52012019 3:25 50 PM BORROW DITCH / IRRIGATION POND NOBLE E�rilC GEISFI2T 4-12 --Car--- -_ • 06. 0 /3 000 30' PIPELINE RICHT—OF—WAY, AS —BUILT, PIPE EXPOSED IN RIVER (REC.NO. 2426217) EXCEPTION NO. 43 was NOBLE ENERGY DPG F12-29 (REC.NO. 3600774) NO VISIBLE WELL EXCEPTION NC. 55 TEST BORE ONLY NO CASING INSTALLED EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD NOBLE YAKLICH—PM F12-3 '2- NOBLE ENERGY DPG 12-28 a/ POND 1 i d. act // Rt.Ri.KbA.. E �U /i 7; f \1/ l 1 i e NOBLE DPG 1-15H5 EXISTING BUILDING one _ S ant IR= row main DPG DPG F 1-23 NOBLE GAS LINE mom i air Ina 30' PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS -BUILT (REC. NO. 2428088) \ EXCEPTION NO. 44 TANK BATTERY NOW REMOVED SURFACE USE (REC.NO. 2426216) EXCEPTION NO. 42 30' PIPELINE RIGHT—OF—WAY, \ \\..SAS —BUILT (REC. NO. 2426217) '\\ EXCEPTION NO. 43 \\\ \\ \ 0.777 r."7 z �NNOBLE ENERGY LOUSTALET 1 30' PIPELINE RIGHT—OF—WAY, AS -BUILT (REC. NO. 2426217) EXCEPTION NO. 43 TANK NOBLE DPG NOBLE DPG 1-16H16H5 or' 50' PIPELINE EASEMENT (REC. NO. 4159849) EXCEPTION NO. � 11 NOBLE ENERGY GAS LINES I1' \\ i `1 I\ \\A 0 Cti LEGEND: G - ST IRR - IRR OE IMIM UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE GAS TANK GAS VALVE WELL PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING FENCE LINE GAS STORM SEWER IRRIGATION TELEPHONE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARY FLOOD WAY FLOODPLAIN IBM MOMS Mai Mira i PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY (REC. NO. 3302446) EXCEPTION NO. 46 CENTERLINE OF PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS -BUILT (REC.NO. 1957079) NO WIDTH SPECIFIED I EXCEPTION NO. 33 I I` MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3 .l 200 100 0 200 400 DPG Site 0 N U) U7 () C C d a) a) C a) 0 co N co co O f,) o c..) LL C O N a N Ccs J N 1 In LL o C" t a C U C ta C C 8 Exhibit C-2 Pre -Mining Plan Map J-2 Contracting Company 2 co z O U) w C 0 0 J&T CONSULTING Jobs 18114 Date 4/4/9 Drawn By Designed By Checked By JCY Fee JT-Mininq Scale 1" = 200' WSS TPY EC° Sheet: SCALE IN FEET Of 2 5 TANK BATTERY NOW REMOVED SURFACE USE (REC.NO. 2426216) EXCEPTION NO. 34 30PIPELI EASEMENT (REC. O. 44O576O) (FR . NO. 4438066) XCEPTION NO. 73 DIVERSION STRUCTURE cn cn k a E m DIVERSION STRUCTURE HOLLY A ENUE NOBLE ENERGY GAS LINE GOZA FAMI i DRIVEWAY NOBLE ENERGY 7 GEISERT 5-12 NOBLE ENERGY GOZA FAMILY HOUSE NOBLE YAKLICH-PM F12-3 DELTA IRRIGATION COMPANY DITCH (REC.NO. 58687) EXCEPTION NO. 16 NOBLE ENERGY YAKLICH F12-6 30' PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS -BUILT (REC. NO. 2426217) EXCEPTION NO. 43 EXISTING DPG FENCE NOBLE ENERGY c\ GAS LINE �\ XCEL ENERGY POWER & POLES (TYP) DIVERSION STRUCTURE CENTURYLINK TELEPHONE 30' PIPELINE EASEMENT (REC. NO. 4405760) (REC. NO. 4438066) EXCEPTION NO. 73, c. 30' PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS -BUILT (REC. NO. 2426217) EXCEPTION NO. 43 WATER STRUCTURE EXISTING BUILDING XCEL ENERGY POWER POLE (TYP) ABANDON RESIDENCE EXISTING dr BUILDING NOBLE ENERGY YAKLICH DPG 12-18 20' PIPELINE EASEMENT AS CONSTRUCTED (REC. NO. 1996779) EXCEPTION NO. 35 J' PIPELINE EASEMENT / �� (REC. NO. 3039321) EXCEPTION NO. 45 i�j�/ NOBLE ENERGY LOUSTALET 32-12 '-- EXISTING TANK CENTERLINE OF PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS -BUILT (REC.NO. 1957079) NO WIDTH SPECIFIED EXCEPTION NO. 33 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2 NOBLE DPG F 12-1H5 / DELTA IRRIGATION COMPANY DITCH (REC.NO. 58687) EXCEPTION NO. 16 LEGEND: UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE GAS TANK GAS VALVE WELL PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING \\ 1 1\\ J\ \\ \\ / /� j ,, \\ //v.--------- / 1 1, /' 5O' EASEMENTPIPELINE E. NO. 4SE) i 1� \\ i / NOBLE EXCEPTION NO. 63 \ \ \\ / / DPG F 12-17 1 11 Ze FENCE LINE GAS STORM SEWER IRRIGATION TELEPHONE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARY FLOODWAY FLOODPLAIN SCALE IN FEET J&T CONSULTING Job Ai 18114 Date 4/4/19 Drawn B WSS Designed By TPY Checked By JCY File JT-Minin. Scale 1" = 200' Sheet: P H 8110 LPG Mining Site+Drawngs%Mrng PtanUT.nining C 301 g 'Meng Map (1). 5.120/2019 3 26 09 PM ikbn, 41 ' / //eft �-- oltazole 7, r r Ak I /.)07 / / \1/4.., A. / ii` 1t11�a�� _ \ ' -- 1/4,x-.1/4. 1/4> ire ' `�" " "'` �.-fit\ i• / �: t % \• 1 j 1 �_' �.,-7• '^+:>. e..✓.r•^. ".. �'� :,�®•,�{t 1, ,,J '* `� { �'�y, 1 ...�"'s_� • I' II !' Lr O 1 1/4-. "1/4.-..-.' i -: O __ ..-(.......„ ,/f .,l,t .2.12-:...i...___ -, 44- / - NYIj • /i \ ,/ \\ --- < 11 / / f .s%)ter / 1 PERMIT BOUNDARY EXISTING GROUND — i Varies / /, /, LINED DITCH "(/ • I NOBLE ENERGY DPG F 1-33 NOBLE ENERGGY..,, i, •F12-29 - (REC N(71: 36007.74) NO VISIBLE Wei ``PHASE 1 _- �xCEQ.IICI SLl1iiRY WALL / NOBLE ENERGY EISERT 4-1200e - f l PHASE 2 ''20.1 AC 1/4 a - -mow art- a. r r - ti r r f 4630 N N vim _rim seal I s ..- - .•••, V ... -e; / J , - rrri % / r ( //-ter. 1// I / / ,- // j \ / 150' ! OS ....C./ -- *Ma ,��, II ee I ->- /I/ �� _-_--__---u t / "jrf -c-Ire\\i.. \ , yi' �/ I,\,1 \ �SL RRYPHASE 2WA�L�rr1)I/.riri 1 __-.c- `NO LE ENERGY j DPG 12-28 't�,, v i- PHASE 1 '� 24.G ACN \ ;; \ •\ \ ; 1/4.. _,„ , -- ............ _ _---- 44. 25' 1 SAND AND GRAVEL //3 . _ ,(1:// ///BE DROCK% TYPICAL MINING SECTION N.I.S. \ rte \ �I 1 rI aratalliEl .1,10101e441\ DEWATERING TRENCH 5' �{ J — 55' - 110' _1 / DEWA1IIERINc// / 6 \A PIPE 1' /ipe 1/4.. „J.\ II I I / e TT \to • \ 1r . c� (• \•-‘!"C%') ,, 1. \r i3\ c)/r--t i h /_ _r ill f/ I } ill" / , /% / /et/ Nt 'O7 / t I 't e. SETTLE POND 1./ SETTLE POND 2 i PROCESS WATER DITCH PHAS E 5 PROCESSING - AREA NOBLE ENERGY LOUSTALET 1 STOCKPILE AREA r 1 45.4 AC \ ~. \ \ t 1 fr1 \ \\ ' 44)\\ \ \ I \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ {oce/ :,� • rr. • /PHASE 4 SLURff MALL !tan snit inThrimenkimins' I a NMI - .50' SETBACK FROM PERMIT %. T3OUNDARY ./ BORROW PIT ?5' (TYP) milt/0 50' PIPELINE EASEMIE;;://::p EXCEPTION NO. 63 //1 • .e FROM PERMIT - TANK BOUNDARY PHASE 4 44.1 AC O1( / SLURRY WALL 30\ PIPELINE RIGHT -OF -WA \cREC. NO. 3302446) 1EXCEPTION NO. 46 NOBLE ENERGY GAS LINES 0 LEGEND: I INN UTILITY POLE GAS TANK GAS VALVE WELL PROPERTY UNE EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING EASEMENT GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARY PROPOSED SLURRY WALL MINING PHASE LIMIT JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND FLOODWAY FLOODPLAIN I CENTERLINE- OF PIPELIN RIGHT-OF-WAY' AS -Eh.' NO WIDTH SPECIFIED 1 /2- t " \ 0 SEE sHEET, 200 100 0 200 400 ( rarium PHASE la MINING TO MAXIMUM 30 FT DEPTH Jiff 11.C 600 SCALE IN FEET Job X I CO CO 10 W U- DPG Site Exhibit C-4 Mining Plan Map J-2 Contracting Company 2 REVISIONS O J&T CONSULTING 18114 Date Drawn By 4/4/19 BDC TPY Designed By Checked By Scale JCY Sheet: P V 8114 DPG Mining 5 to\DrawngsW n ng PIanUT-n n ng G34vg Mining Map 121. 5/2012019 3.2622 PM / l ,, 'Cr./i t� "I ' "• . / I 'V r" ` TANK i -�� ' PHASE 5 i I 1 " L i. r / 'i�SLURRY WALL 1 1 i.� cic sr-- r / 1 G! V JlT Consul 305 Denver Avenue Fort Lupton, CO F Ph: 303-857-6222 Fax: 3C www.j-tconsu/t ing, c 1 , / ->...;.***. ✓ , .• d • :••••-• �'' /.tee`-,/ ; . � 30'• PIPELINE RIGHT -OF -WA' -(REC. NO. 3302446) 11 CENTERLINE.. OE PIPELINE. RIGHT-OF-WAY AS BUILT .% 1 1SPEC NOBLE G Y `E � � � i '", n "` '•:,.-..... 4; _ _ - .. I NEWSJDTHEN-1 F9ED I r, . `,.;.�......._.... A ""�,.., '>: " if ._._ --- _ _ —�..». _"` - :r,,,,�. ' \, . .. r7 «.: . ..,.: _, a 3bY. _ _.. _„�/r-.; � .-.-. -.,. ....- ...; �"" -..— «..-.•.•. ,-.�,: _ ,. r ... w_..4. --- —" .. �. -. ,. _ .; 1 .. _ •� ..... - ��:PROCESSING N NO 33 ,P r ... .. r.......�, .� r ...... n ... �,.. \�`� PR OCE s'li y. .� r .3. d ` AREA NE l •/ ‘ NOBLE ENERGY �. J Y � I\ ,., { 4- „_, �r 1� SEA t 5N!T 4 1 ` ''₹ ` Y; " LOUSTALET 1 f PHASE 1 1 i ~ } j _ \ /. STOCKPILE AREA/ J `` 'S .(TYP)-, \ // ' / f ,/ 1 `' y i/ # ` 11 1} i I I /,' ttr i/ � `` / PROCESSING `'. AREA 1 , )> - _ / 45.4 \ l i 25 AC �,.. / 50' SETBACK ,;f it fiN. FROM GAS LINE t, EASEMENT t� dry/ t` \ 1 / rj DPG Site Exhibit C-5 Mining Plan Map 1f _ T X �� ',``�E—" \ 1� J / / / fr . i j , \- ' l% 4�� f'r°: f. ,`.. ' s , {t �� I t' I i `� f PHASE PHASE 3 SLURRY WALL J STOCKPILE AREA .. / 3 \� , \: ,-. -I f\; I \ t_ t 1 {///. i f 56.2 AC -- �' , fio g;�il'j g. �. .... y \ . / :� `• ` 7 \ 50' SETBACK / /� L ~ f v s \ ter' � y ,��r T, /� .' "' - t 1 t ' \ / FROM PERMIT /� a' BOUNDARY, �/ 1 ti / ...-e-,.e-' ..' 9. r /✓ r � -- ' "� " ' �,� I . f '�"r GATE r : � :< / f t �'!� NOBLE ENERGY a^' r - - ` ;;,�1 YAKLICH 4� \\ f �✓ `<.,. I - .2, 'f 9' s ilj :::: f. , W � �nPG'42-18 �� I/• / / !/ a�� ` f' 'r `` ,%w. /.i/ ;/, ' /� V�✓F. // / ,. / `1 ✓ 1`81` QI1-I� �,%ser STRUCTURE ___,.....0.••••:„......:.I., -• �'r �� Ir DIVERSION / /� t/ _ V� i it 2 , / �. , -�: /j/Ci / _ J///' ' . ,'l' ,s / a'R. •, w iI j/ •,/ -1.44...-•••�t<•+.,. -.l "' \ '� .:�+" .+^ ". '293. I "fi n' - �'�' "` �, � . //% / -^ �\ l r>/s• i/ <r / �j ,, �� /25 (TYP) 1 \\ r `_ - } SHOP AREA a .t I k !` . ,,.' / a ��i • pawl t• ;., / /.�-50' NOBLE ENERGY Vii'' =" '� �j` �. /'' ; ,..�'---. /ft GEISERT 5-12 /,.� i ;/•? T �, / y— i/_ --------- .�, t--------..---1.±<'.• �— i / C 't. `— -,' , 1. `•.. ( ''G': '• ...--=' j` ..'' _------..---.--....-...._,,.....- / '" ,i / f, /r L \ ra rr w" \ • _....:.,-. 50 SETBACK -2.•-_-..;-<----, r ...,. t , g I / > FROM PROPERTY •'/ r/1r ., tai / r /. ,. � f y i t . \ rs / , /` 1 . \ �`/ ` ,� / ; __ _ 6 / BOUNDARY TYP !"�'". ��r✓t / / ... 1 rF {/ _ �/ ci /tom ,,/� t _`� EXISTING FENCE NOBLE ENERGY / ` p., `/ ✓ . GAS LINE / , ,; ;,. ;, �/• _,_ _.,\. T. / /" �yti --- l / -"--- ! r • , / •,r• ., - _ is r,"� 1 �\ /� ) _ \`_.. , \ (.,--_,.-----G--,--->•-. NOBLE ENERGY, _- ., r / r ' �. •- LOUSTALET 32 12 . / r >� f / C� °` /: ;tY ms^"' _.. �\ca�' V.. `l:\`_..._ r... t l� /cr^ -A '!RUCK SCALE / r \ l `` , r.I I \ t bla f.., .. ,. N.....- Y ..Z/��. �.-y..- ,' , �� s j ,r�i':.. I '.r t r: !/�' '` ` "` .8¢ f t . _. - _� ® jfE .... ! // re'°`�. jl r, ✓ � : , f : -a ,, •.. '- ,-„:-./•1,,• ya �i . ,: �� r is a, ... ,1...„ , / \ ,�„,��' 3 �s . f \i.` ! 7- - • � ` 9 : �. ® , ! '. F _... '� f ,_ - . ..✓ ----- „h,se:. ---- •w- t i.H.f... ni ,. / ..' l = `. , : -1,"..-/ ..:. ,,....."•.. t > g J"/ � / ••' i,rF -• ' — � a I - ,w"\`SY. i .,,` •, " `°`. 4' `�; nx �, ,> r .I�V �,o AV., f, i m _..:,1, „y_.Y':+n./•. , , / c w,.... ' \ ` ,r '` ..\% /-' - , ti /1 \.. -�' `t1 ,/ /te �,.. >_. .._. ..... w r. ',. ' \ \ • " ,"t1`` / b1 e % \ J- I 'r/�' - .,,, „.1aYd'µ / ..-....\ r + pi ! `/ rT f \ ,- } � ^.• d.✓.' / , 1 tJ . i.. !!t ', . _ x, ,: r.i h' .. M1 4 tom./ -,.� i /' /'� /r / •'l: -/' i ^ , ..y /w '- / \ Y _ t ,' I /./� 1 ,d i / } j - r i:�( ,•at - T I• / �r _.. f /' . •- --_... / _ f �f R,. l \ •� I I t.�\. f ` .. / / / t;it..,I� \. / 're. t / I /• /� r- a ,,r "', ,� j / T. / " ' / )Yr J , . J HOLLY,A VENUE r ^- „- ^' J f t t. ,_ } 1 r i 1-1-- . L . �',- ®. , > r a. / f � t.r f ! s I;' T ! I r / ` �1 / / • » •a { f/„ i G . „., - `r . -� a r t' v a a sg,s i x r, 1 M' / _ '1,'` 1 !J r• ( I .......� i Y ` 7 // ... -. 9 \-.:—/ . `- g e.,. ,�.. ,'✓� / .........-- - ; , w,r f, �' .. - 5 f --^r R• �/ ^"•. " , rie."" , ,f' .:'7' �'.1 _.-yr-'� '- ^ ?C^'„.", .. `_� .'i''<"rnY5'ra :,i •` ,S"zt:_,: mrc^'' . ` _.. � .,.: I ....�-s—'y -.i J `Y'r"tl° - �\ •ST. , iy=aD•m`�.rr_ "- `» j_______„,_ ` "� Ta 's ' - - -:,-;-,•=2„.„-.-..,.----- �! JIIt') iri — ..i0_:{sY - -:.a` .\ —""` " '; PIT 1` ENTRANCE I'1I % :` I f I \ O,- /t t Of y •, 1,— -✓ / J r ! tiJa/ ;a v •"!--•-..- ..� ; ^ r_• j`. 1 f� /'F, .. ,1 _s-ar"'� ,e3v s f .,. /6 ,�\ �_, ter = tl = , ..$ .w, .N.'" ..•' e i / — / 1^'- ail _ ''..��. 1 j'' —\ -...�1i! ``� �, ' r / 1 I J 1 / .- ^ ! ( I a -' 4 -. -r > %� r:.».✓! ./ r',.. f/^ •y""- I 1 / :il11<I 1III ,'i , r 1 tt / I t J ( f ✓tet rl , ?` '") fit L / , i / % l REVISIONS I v o t{ f I I ES1i! I '` }t /'`v/I { ,., / i 1,;Iy { 1 I e) / , ,\ ,. rr C\e/i r t l ! / JI !' f/r/ "t✓'� r 11 I1 / f, 'n: J.//r: ,� "K.\'' a �' Aft' ; s �,4"� i 5 �' - ",, 1 i/ % i ;eV. \\,Mt ES y{j 1 \; 1 t } \ /' ^ 1 \! 1 t r \1 \ q\, v.. I \ 1 t f '" `w a `\ \ ✓I II�j ltE { l �,.:: �. _. � ._ \ 1 ... I'�� i1 -h ,°' ( t`., ::: . t / i,.:XT�.,{ /'2 l }' i / \! r f � r l r / -K <-/ J 1 ( r . `. I N' •.,.,.3 1 �' /s.'1f`" -� ja ` `5 .., �^ I M . r\'�, / '" / a sY < _ _ .•r\ t11 '/ 1A;/ f/C ..' 'a rte.. DPP �Er it f ": > • / I / r , �4 / c�/,',' ,; j/; / t� y J / 1 % f / — r , /,v \ f,1 /_1 _ ,.. ` / /i r {,r 1 \''''' ,`' . r✓ / / \ I tow /'?'/. / \BOUNDARY , w/ PERMIT Vars yy f 1 i ,!/EXTING i'e.t`\/ 4` r+ AL\.. i/I ) i i Y2' I „,...7 / I l GROUND 25' U \ 1\. ,I/d J \\`\t\\, ( r � ` f �.. ._.. .�-� l y ,/ 1 iS /,/ \/, .'//// ''/f ✓ e"/ `� 11 `) t 4 iii \ rl '. P / / \/�// \// /�\ .' f/ g // /,\�j\�j\/�j`\TS/OB/ `\ \ /�j\/�j >, m Date II VI \\�� \ 1 „ 11 I `�; - * r /// j,'\,I I I •1 \f_ i. /%/ > LEGEND: f SLURRY WALL £ }/ : - `, / ✓ Jf \` �` .'��w•~` --' \ 4 _M_ ///.- r'/,rr"_t er \ „/ —f ///// _,\ • 1} +A // 1 t _ r . / !J €/Ij. 11 1 i< \\ f//I7 / UTILITY POLE y / /rte 1 I GAS TANK C AND GRAVEL z �`' "r•. � ` -� i ". ; 1 / \ \ + I $ ,F \ \t / 1, ... f •SAND 55 - 110' - J&T CONSULTING C. e- � Vern -4 `.,.yam _ ";� r '~\.1 \ ? f �' 1 1 C f 0 GAS VALVE \' i ....r.,-- -i` \ _-�o--�St;�/�,`�e: � ..,...c_ .- 0, ® WELL -•,. ,,,,_ 1, >!� WELL �.,. _ . PROPERTY LINE h- 5, - x l /�� / / x EXISTING FENCE LINE ••✓// ' ,/// /� /�3 ��/ /Z// •.•7 /� / - 4'% ' �� DROCK% 1 / , G - EXISTING GAS LINE//''''' . , //7/' ////• `//�/.' %r'-'//// 5 u EXISTING EASEMENT ///,' '//T✓ •%/," DEWATERING TRENCH Jobp 18114 GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED PERMIT Date 4/4/19 nom smo es t v.m ayBOUNDARY TYPICAL P Checked By JCY File JT-Mining Scale 1" = 200'± `\\\\\\`�,\'o\�,-\\\\`.\\\\�1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND 200 100 0 200 400 600 Sheet: Of: 5 5 FLOODWAY I INN I I I r r_ ra FLOODPLAIN SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT D Mining Plan Mining Limits J-2 Contracting proposes to mine in the land located in the north 1/2 of section 12, and the southwest 1/4 of northeast corner of section 11, township 5 north, range 65 west of the 6th p.m., and the south 1/2 section of section 1, township 5 north, range 65 west of the 6th p.m., Weld County, Colorado. The proposed mining site is located approximately 2 miles north and 2 miles west of the Town of Kersey, and approximately 2 miles north of State Highway 34. The South Platte River is approximately 600 feet south of the site on the west side of the permit boundary and 200 feet south and east of the site on the east side of the permit boundary. The Cache La Poudre River is adjacent to the north side of the permit boundary. The Weld County Parkway is immediately adjacent to the west side of the permit boundary. Access to the site will be located at the southwest corner of the permit boundary off of the Weld County Parkway. The dominant land use surrounding the property is agricultural. An aggregate processing plant area and a concrete and asphalt batch plant area will be located within the mining area as shown on the Mining Plan Map. These areas will contain stockpiles, portable equipment, storage bins, and silos as necessary to support the plant operations. Designated locations for concrete truck washout and excess concrete product dumping will be provided to ensure that waste materials are recycled and kept from entering the stormwater flows on the site. The concrete truck washout area will be a 30 foot by 20 foot three cell concrete structure. Concrete trucks will wash the residual product from their mixing drums and chutes into the first cell of the structure. The first cell spills into the second cell, which spills into the third cell. This allows the aggregate and suspended fines to settle into the cells over time. The water and settled material in the three cells is then removed as required and recycled into the concrete batch plant. Generally, the cells are cleaned on a weekly schedule. The excess product dumping area will be approximately 50 feet by 100 feet and have an exterior berm to limit the migration of stormwater flows to and from the surrounding areas. Excess product that is deposited in this area will be allowed to cure for approximately 90 days until it becomes inert. It will then be crushed and recycled. All local, State, and Federal rules and regulations will be followed for the storage and handling of any fuel, asphalt, cement, flyash, and admixtures required for the batching facilities. The permit boundary will encompass approximately 228.02 acres with approximately 190.37 acres being mined. The remaining area will consist of setbacks, road and utility right-of-ways, equipment storage, and plant site access. Various setbacks from adjacent roads, adjacent structures, and oil and gas infrastructure will be maintained as mining occurs. All setbacks specified in the surface use agreements with the oil/gas companies will be followed. Attached are draft surface use agreements with the pertinent oil/gas companies. The final executed agreements are expected to be obtained in the near future and will be forwarded to the Division when they are available. A minimum 200 foot JET Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application setback from any existing oil/gas facility will be maintained until that time. See Exhibit C, Mining Plan Map, and the Slope Stability Report for the mining limit configuration and information on setbacks and their locations. Products Sand and gravel will be the primary product produced from the DPG Mining site. The principal intended use for the sand and gravel is for road base and construction aggregates. Subsurface drilling and testing have verified that the DPG Mining site property contains a significant commercial deposit of sand and gravel. The depth of interbedded sandy clays and clayey to silty sands at the surface range from 3 to 12 feet. The thickness of the aggregate material ranges from 67 to 102 feet where bedrock contact occurs. Mining Methods The deposit will be dry mined and a slurry wall will be constructed around the perimeter of the mining area for Phase 1. Phase 2, 3, 4, and 5 will not be opened until the slurry wall is constructed around each phase prior to mining each phase. Design specifications for the slurry wall and quality control procedures used during construction will ensure that the reclaimed reservoir meets State Engineer's Office (SEO) performance standards. Dewatering trenches will be excavated around the perimeter of each mining area in Phases 1 5 prior to mining operations commencing. The depth of the ditches will vary as the mining progresses deeper into the alluvium in order to maintain the groundwater level below the active mining bottom surface, and therefore minimize the exposed groundwater surface area. The dewatering ditches will flow to a collection pond, from which the water will be pumped into a ditch, which traverses the mining phases and eventually discharged into the Cache La Poudre River. The equipment and facilities may include, but are not limited to the following: Processing Equipment Screens, crusher, conveyors, stackers, and other miscellaneous processing equipment. Earth Moving Equipment Dozers, loaders, scrapers, excavators, and compactors will be used for mining and earth moving operations. Miscellaneous Equipment Dewatering pumps, electrical trailer, generator trailer, small portable generators and watering trucks will be used as needed. As mining progresses, topsoil and overburden will be stripped to expose the aggregate product below. All soil and overburden material will be used on -site for reclamation; so long-term stockpiling of these materials is not anticipated. Overburden stockpiles will be located within the proposed mining area. The stockpiles will be placed parallel to the floodplain to mitigate impacts to the floodplain. Mining of the aggregate will progress down to the underlying bedrock. Since reclamation will occur concurrently with mining, it is not anticipated that overburden material will be stockpiled long-term prior to use in production of road base and potentially backfilling of pit areas that are not lined with a slurry wall. During mining the mining face will have a 3H:1V slope to bedrock or 7 �r J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application the bottom of the future reclaimed reservoir. The processed aggregate material will be temporarily stockpiled near the portable processing plant. All local, State, and Federal rules and regulations will be followed for the storage and handling of any fuel for the facilities. Topsoil Handling Plan As stated previously the topsoil will be stripped to expose the aggregate product underlying the topsoil. The topsoil will be stripped using scrapers and stockpiled in the topsoil stockpile as depicted in Exhibit C. The volume of topsoil for all the mining phases is approximately 306,000 cubic yards. The depth of the topsoil is approximately twelve inches over the majority of the mining area. The topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled during each phase of mining where topsoil will only be removed for Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4, and Phase 5 as they are going to be mined. The height of the topsoil stockpile will be approximately 15 feet. Mine Phasing J-2 Contracting anticipates mining and reclaiming the DPG Mining site in 5 phases, progressing through the phases as shown on the Mining Plan Map. The overall time required to complete the mining and reclamation is estimated to be 30 years. Maximum production is expected to be 750,000 tons per year. However, it is possible that due to demand fluctuations, mining could progress slower than anticipated and additional time may be required for mining and reclamation of the site. J-2 Contracting Company will mine down to an elevation of 4523 in Phase 1 of the mining plan encompassing a total of 24.57 acres of the mining limits and groundwater will be exposed. A slurry wall will be constructed around Phase 1. It is expected that a maximum of 2 phases will be disturbed at any given time, and if more are disturbed J-2 Contracting Company will provide notification to DRMS and financial warranty for each phase prior to opening or disturbing. The mining will progress in each phase beginning at the outer edge of the phase where material will be moved toward the interior of the phase such that a 3H:1V mining slope can be established on the exterior of the phase and then transition to a 3H:1V slope. The mining slope will be established for the entire perimeter of the phase in 3 to 6 feet intervals. In Phases 1 — 5 a dewatering trench around the perimeter will be placed at the toe of the 3H:1V or 3H:1V mining slope. As the phase is mined deeper the dewatering trench will be lowered and moved laterally along the 3H:1V and then the 3H:1V mining slope toward the center of that phase. Once the interior footprint becomes small enough where the 3H:1V mining slopes from three to four sides are encroaching upon the portable plant and haul roads another phase will be opened to continue mining. Dewaterinq Dewatering trenches will be placed along the perimeter of each mining area in Phases 1 — 5. The dewatering trench around the perimeter of the phase being mined will be placed at the toe of the 3H:1V or 2H:1V mining slope. As the phase is mined deeper the dewatering trench will be lowered and moved laterally along the 3H:1V mining slope toward the center of that phase. Once the interior area becomes small enough where the 3H:1V mining slopes from three to four sides are encroaching upon the portable plant and haul roads another phase will be opened to continue mining. The slurry wall is anticipated to be installed around the perimeter of Phase 1 and prior to starting mining in Phase 2 and it is expected minimal dewatering will be required in J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application the subsequent phases due to the slurry wall cutting off groundwater infiltration into the pit. J-2 Contracting Company will have an approved substitute water supply plan and well permit prior to exposing groundwater. The substitute supply plan will be updated annually to account for water that is consumed due to exposing groundwater by the mining operation. Explosives Explosives will not be used during mining. J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT E Reclamation Plan Lined water storage reservoirs will be the final reclaimed use for the DPG Mining site. Portions of mining areas will be reclaimed as "native" areas, which will be re -seeded with native vegetation. The majority of the mining areas will be reclaimed as water storage reservoirs. The remaining area within the proposed permit boundary will consist of reservoir shoreline, unimproved access roads around the reservoirs, and reclaimed or otherwise undisturbed land. Final Land Use Reclamation Plan Area (acres) Reservoir Water Surface 176.80 Access Roads 21.56 Reclaimed Vegetated Land and Undisturbed Land 29.66 TOTAL 228.02 Water Storage Reservoir In general, the mining limits will be mined down to the shale/claystone/sandstone bedrock. The relatively impermeable bedrock will make the bottom of the reservoir. The reservoir will be separated from the surrounding alluvial aquifer by the slurry wall liner system as detailed in the cross-section shown on the Reclamation Plan Map. The slurry wall liner will be keyed into the bedrock material and extend upward through the entire height of the alluvium. Design specifications and quality control procedures used during the construction of the slurry wall liner will ensure that the reservoir meets the State Engineer's Office (SEO) performance standards for permeability. The slurry wall is anticipated to be installed around the perimeter of Phase 1 and 2 after a depth of 30 feet is reached in Phase 1 and prior to starting mining in Phase 2 and it is expected minimal dewatering will be required in the subsequent phases due to the slurry wall cutting off groundwater infiltration into the pit. All reservoir slopes will be reclaimed to at least 3H:1V final grade Since reclamation will be concurrent with mining, most soil, overburden, and bedrock material excavated during mining will be used almost immediately. Scrapers and dozers and compactors will be used to shape the reclaimed slope material along the reservoir perimeters to achieve the final grade. Upon placing the backfill material, 95 percent compaction will be achieved to ensure adequate integrity of backfilled areas for haul/access roads and recharge pond areas that are not within the future water storage/reservoir footprint. Final reclamation by capping with topsoil and re -vegetating above the expected reservoir water level will follow grading operations as well as backfilled areas that will not be haul/access roads to minimize the amount of disturbance at any one time. During reclamation activities, inlet and outlet facilities for the reservoir will be designed and installed once the operational criteria of the proposed reservoir have been identified by an end user. Ulf J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application Reclamation Measures/Materials Handling Backfilling will be done to provide stabilized shorelines around the reservoir and to minimize erosion. The backfill material will consist of gravel, overburden, and topsoil. There will not be known toxic or hazardous materials in the backfill material. Additionally, it is not likely that acid forming or toxic materials will be encountered during mining. The mining will not leave high walls on the property. In addition, there will be no auger holes, excavations, or shafts left on the property. Overburden that is not used for production of road base and topsoil that is removed during the mining will be used to reclaim the mining slopes and areas that are disturbed during the mining such as haul/access roads and recharge pond areas. Overburden will be placed in the areas such as haul/roads and the recharge pond areas to bring the grade to the final reclaimed elevation. Topsoil will then be placed to finalize the grading such that seeding can occur. The topsoil will be placed at all disturbed areas and on the mining slope to an elevation matching the expected reservoir water level. Topsoiling Approximately the top twelve inches of soil on the property is classified as topsoil. This layer includes the root zone of grasses and crops, which will be stripped and stockpiled separately. By using concurrent reclamation techniques, the topsoil is not expected to remain in stockpiles for more than one to five years. If the stockpile remains more than one growing season, it will be seeded with a fast-growing vegetative cover to prevent erosion. All topsoil will be retained on - site to reclaim the reservoir shoreline, and other areas disturbed by mining activities. Where required, topsoil will be replaced to a depth of twelve inches. Revegetation As mining operations are completed, areas for reclamation will be graded and shaped for revegetation. Runoff or excess water from adjacent areas will not be allowed to flow over slopes being graded and seeded. If needed, berms or channels will be constructed to divert excess water and convey it in a safe and non -erosive manner. For disturbed areas, the reclamation plan includes re -vegetating with appropriate seed mixes to minimize erosion and re-establish natural terrain. The seed mixture below was selected to be long lasting and regenerating, as recommended by the Greeley Natural Resource Conservation Service Office (see attached recommendation). The ground will be fine graded prior to seeding and mulch will be applied according to recommendations from the NRCS. Reservoir side slopes below the anticipated reservoir water level will not be seeded. The proposed seed mix is shown in the following table. J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application Final Reclamation Seed Mix Application Rate' (#PLS/acre) % in mix Sideoats Grama (El Reno variety) 2.7 #PLS/ac 30 Western Wheatgrass (Arriba) 4.0 #PLS/ac 40 Green Needlegrass (Lodorm) 2.0 #PLS/ac 20 Blue Grama (Hachita) 0.45 #PLS/ac 5 Switchgrass (Blackwell) 0.5 #PLS/ac 5 Totals 9.65 #PLS/ac 100 *Application rate is for drilling the seed. If seed is to be broadcast, the application rate will be doubled. The seed mix for final reclamation as described above does not require fertilizer as recommended by the local NRCS office in Greeley, Colorado. The seeded areas will be covered with dead crop litter from sorghum or milo crop forage, or with straw mulch at a rate of 4,000 pounds per acre. If a significant invasion of noxious weeds occurs after seeding, the weeds will be mowed before they can go to seed. The areas will be mowed periodically for additional control as needed. Mechanical control will be used as a first priority. Chemical methods will only be used if no other alternative produces acceptable results. For temporary.. stockpiles, the reclamation plan includes re -vegetating_ with appropriate seed mixes to minimize erosion and establish more rapidly to stabilize the stockpiles. The grass mixture below was selected as recommended by the Greeley NRCS field office. The proposed seed mix is shown in the following table. Temporary Stockpile Seed Mix Application Rate` (#PLS/acre) % in mix Slender wheatgrass 2.8 #PLS/ac 37 Pubescent wheatgrass 4.2 #PLS/ac 55 Sand dropseed 0.03 #PLS/ac 0.5 Crested wheatgrass 0.6 #PLS/ac 7.5 Totals 7.63 #PLS/ac 100 * Application rate is for drilling the seed. If seed is to be broadcast, the application rate will be doubled. The seed mix for temporary stockpiles as described above does not require fertilizer as recommended by the local NRCS office in Greeley, Colorado. Water — General Requirement To minimize the effect on the prevailing hydrologic balance, J-2 Contracting Company will: a. Comply with all applicable Colorado water laws. b. Comply with all applicable Federal and State water quality laws and regulations. c. Comply with all Federal and State requirements for dredge and fill. d. Re -grade and backfill all sediment and siltation structures after mining is completed. sim JaT Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application e. Monitor groundwater levels adjacent to the site and mitigate any damage to adjacent wells that dewatering activities may have. (See Exhibit G) Groundwater - Specific Requirements The operation will not affect groundwater quality on or off the site. The operation will comply with State groundwater quality standards. The mining and reclamation may affect the groundwater table surrounding the mine site. The proposed mitigation efforts to minimize these impacts are recharge ponds or ditches in necessary areas to maintain groundwater levels during the mining, and a perimeter drain if needed to convey groundwater around the lined reservoir after the pit side liner is installed. J-2 Contracting Company proposes that they monitor groundwater levels through both interior (within phases of the mining) and exterior (outside the slurry wall lining) monitoring wells that they have installed, or have access to before, during, and after the mining and reclamation is complete so that impacts to the groundwater table, from this mining operation, can be identified and addressed. It is the intent of J-2 Contracting Company to operate responsibly and to mitigate any damage to wells that is directly attributable to the mining and reclamation of this site. Reclamation — Approximate Time Table The maximum proposed rate of production for the mine is 750,000 tons per year. The total time frame to mine all phases is approximately 30 years. The following table shows the approximate time frame to finish each phase of mining: Mine Phase and Acreage Time Frame to Complete and Reclaim Phase Phase 1 — 24.57 acres 4 years Phase 2 — 20.08 acres 3 years 6 months Phase 3 — 56.19 acres 10 years Phase 4 — 44.10 acres 8 years 5 months Phase 5 — 45.43 acres 7 years and 4 months The assumed annual production rate is 750,000 tons for processed material leaving the mine each year. The size and area of reclamation varies for each phase but generally consists of the outside mining slope being reclaimed at a 3H:1V and 3H:1V slope with the addition of overburden, topsoil, and revegetation. For more information on sequencing and size of the reclamation activities refer to Exhibit L financial warranty calculations. ElJ&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT F Reclamation Plan Map See attached map. J&T Consulting, Inc. NM 1 J-2 Contracting Company DPG Mining Site DRMS 112 Permit Application PERMIT BOUNDARY EXISTING GROUND s may".-,M1�4',"•"_'+�� 'y,$,�:.._"4�C',3'rS�r+T. '�/ -�: 4 L C 1 - 4630,. 1 /.. I `4(7r f { LEGEND: II, II' 11 II 11 A ors 1 woo lime oes/ssr` CHE LA poi,. .ittleta K 0 \ `` 1` \\ \\\ 117-7 \ / \ -\---,._ \ \ I \ \ \ \} 1 • /f/ \ \ \♦♦ i • r� / / / / .♦• ♦ ..„\` \ � .- di } \\ 1 l• \ "-3 `- \ G NMI — tiDaa mama I MI I UTILITY POLE GAS TANK GAS VALVE WELL PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING EASEMENT GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARY PROPOSED SLURRY WALL JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND SEEDING AREA ACCESS ROAD SPILLWAY TYPE (SEE DETAILS SHEET 3 & 4) FLOODWAY FLOODPLAIN MATCHLVIIi ,� . SEE' SHEcTp \ 41, .i;i . w\ N > a a`)" > C m O U) O M DPG Site Exhibit F-1 Reclamation Plan J-2 Contracting Company 2 REVISIONS C O a 0 N N ❑ U CO m to O z J&T CONSULTING .obi 18114 4/4/19 Date Drawn By Designed By Checked By File Scale BDC TPY JCY JT-Minina 1" = 200' TYPICAL RECLAMATION SECTION N T.S. 200 100 0 200 400 600 SCALE IN FEET Sheet: of 1 4 P.118114 DPG Mining Site1D7evangskReclomat on Plan\T-Reclamation.dng. Reclamation (2). 5220(2019 3 30 47 PM I _ __I1 i/ I r! \ II' ' III \ i —1r1,— Ir I f f;7 f/ ----------_ -_ _.. _... rI .r it �! I i rse I Jib' i / `I / I I fit // �i }\, \ I If ✓ / I r ;-.r \ I 1/ \ ` I ti� ll / —, II, /\) es, `1 v — L- ` ' /I f A t\- 1¢ 11 t i a I /r ry.- --C' / 1! j/km,. L ^/I "/ I v/?", // !%l/ / ii ii ,!r/mil ,E / / \ J )' ir, 1 / \! EI„ f r ! it / / 11\) { / �`�' i ,) it \ • «tea\ 7 < :�\ / �/� ,---i gi_._._. I , ,�/! .vr r / / \/\ / / // J t \ \/i.� \ ['1l/ \ !t tr 144!" ._fl� Ytaw v -- LEGEND: \‘\\\\r\\\\\\\\\4 UTILITY POLE GAS TANK PERMIT BOUNDARY EXISTING GROUND GAS VALVE -� WELL PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING EASEMENT GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARY PROPOSED SLURRY WALL JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND SEEDING AREA ACCESS ROAD SPILLWAY TYPE (SEE DETAILS SHEET 3 & 4) FLOODWAY FLOODPLAIN RES - OIR 3 41.60 AC Varies TYPICAL RECLAMATION SECTION O rs a) Q C L.r) 0 r> J&T CONSULTING Job Date Drawn By Designed By Checked By File Scale Sheet: MATCHLINE , SEE SHEET'N SCALE IN FEET 18114 4/4/19 BDC TPY JCY JT-Mining 1" = 2001± TOP OF BERM TOP OF BERM RIVER'S THALWEG RIVERSIDE RIVER'S THALWEG D50 = 18" TYPE H RIPRAP 4' 1.5' SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY 5' VARIES SECTION VIEW RIVERSIDE VIEW 0 , X 155' PITSIDE VIEW RIPRAP LINED SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY N.T.S. 1 el CONCRETE CUTOFF f WALL (TYP) 3 EXTEND RIPRAP TO BEDROCK OR TO 3' BELOW PIT BOTTOM EXTEND RIPRAP TO BEDROCK OR TO 3' BELOW PIT BOTTOM DPG Site Reclamation Plan J-2 Contracting Company REVISIONS a 2 z J&T CONSULTING Job# 18114 Date 4/4/19 Grown By Designed By TPY Checked By.: JCY Flle JT-Mining Sale 1"=200'± BDC Sheet: of; 3 4 5' L RIVERSIDE SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY VARIES GRAVEL ROAD ITYPE L SOIL RIPRAP ,t.�v,a y„s�.� ,s_„� _ 3 PITSIDE 41"r#11Z.VilFS it ti 050 = 1a" •S��A:'" 0,,,, _ �� `-�'°�!�+ TYPE H RIPRAP TYPE H RIPRAP �,�*i �}• �� `��,��1�T" .►j RIVER'S THALWEG s a ♦♦ i r� �'y" At., ,T.4.14p, .i s rr� SECTION VIEW -s +1r • s�' ��TlA or TOP OF BERM TOP OF BERM 3' RIVERSIDE VIEW ! I✓ sls� 1 '#'i�.c��lsR'a•^a<`i •1 f lclsi i f: i.1iw.fs.ffi_�s�i�w�s.► PITSIDE VIEW RIPRAP LINED SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY N.T.S. EXTEND RIPRAP TO BEDROCK OR TO 3' BELOW PIT BOTTOM EXTEND RIPRAP TO BEDROCK OR TO 3' BELOW PIT BOTTOM V sa a Reclamation Plan J-2 Contracting Company U Z J&T CONSULTING Job* 16114 Date 4/4/19 Dream By BDC DeslanedSy TPY Checked By JCY Poe JT-Mining Seale 1" = 2 W'± Sheet: 00 4 4 EXHIBIT G Water Information Introduction The DPG Mining site is located in the north 1/2 of section 12, and the southwest 1/4 of northeast corner of section 11, township 5 north, range 65 west of the 6th p.m., and the south 1/2 section of section 1, township 5 north, range 65 west of the 6th p.m., Weld County, Colorado. The proposed mining site is located approximately 2 miles north and 2 miles west of the Town of Kersey, and approximately 2 miles north of State Highway 34. The South Platte River is approximately 600 feet south of the site on the west side of the permit boundary and 200 feet south and east of the site on the east side of the permit boundary. The Cache La Poudre River is adjacent to the north side of the permit boundary. The Weld County Parkway is immediately adjacent to the west side of the permit boundary. The operation will consist of sand and gravel production and will impact the South Platte River and the Cache La Poudre River in the form of depletions due to evaporation and operational losses associated with mining. Mining of the DPG Mining site will last for approximately 30 years. Once reclamation is complete reservoirs will be created with a total surface area of Reservoir 1 being 44.17 acres, Reservoir 2 51.40 acres, Reservoir 3 41.60 acres, and Reservoir 4 42.63 acres. The depth to groundwater ranges from 3 to 10 feet within the permit boundary (measured in MW --1 through MW -9, See the attached piezometer measurements table). The site will be mined down to a depth of 67 to 102 feet thus exposing groundwater to the atmosphere. This exposed groundwater, along with the operational losses associated with the extraction of sand and gravel deposits, will impact the South Platte and Cache La Poudre alluvial aquifer. These impacts will cause river depletions that must be augmented. Groundwater will be exposed during the mining once the mining depths reach an elevation of approximately 4596. To enable dry mining at the DPG Mining site, there will be dewatering trenches around the various phases of the site. These dewatering trenches will change in length throughout mining. The maximum length will occur when one phase is completely mined, but before the reclamation has begun on any given phase. The maximum size of dewatering trench will be 2,300 feet long and 5 feet wide, or 0.26 acres of exposed surface area. This water will be collected in a series of settling ponds totaling 8.5 acres. After sediment has settled from the water it will be pumped into dewatering ditch, which traverses the site, and is discharged into the Cache La Poudre River. As mining progresses, the dewatering trenches and discharge settling pond will shift as various cells are reclaimed. The gravel pit will have a slurry wall liner being constructed as mining commences or prior to mining commencing in Phase 1. Water Requirements Water use at the DPG Mining site will include evaporation from exposed groundwater, dust control of haul roads and stockpiles, and water retained in material removed from the site. J&T Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Evaporative Loss Evaporative losses are dependent on the exposed water surface area, which may shift throughout the mining operation, but will not exceed the maximum. Exposed surface area at the DPG Mining site will include groundwater exposed in the dewatering trenches and discharge settling pond. The maximum exposed surface area at the site during mining is estimated at 0.38 acres. J-2 Contracting Company plans to keep the site dewatered throughout the life of the mine. Evaporation data was taken from NOAA Technical Report NWS 33, Evaporation Atlas for the 48 Contiguous United States. The annual gross evaporation was determined to be 45 inches for this location. Monthly evaporation percentages are established by guidelines set by the State Engineer's Office. To determine precipitation, data from the National Weather Service for Greeley, CO (053553) (1967-2019) was used. The long-term average precipitation at the DPG Mining site is estimated at 14.20 inches. Effective precipitation is calculated as 70% of the total precipitation. The net evaporation is the difference between gross annual evaporation and effective precipitation. The resulting net evaporation is 2.92 feet. The maximum evaporative loss from the 8.76 acres is 25.58 ac -ft. Operational Loss The average annual production from the DPG Mining site is estimated at 750,000 tons. Using 4% moisture content, the total associated consumptive use for water retained in the material mined is 22.07 ac -ft. Dust control use is 10,000 gal/day, 6 days/week, 4 weeks/month for 10 months of the year. This equates to 7.4 ac -ft. Maximum annual operational loss is estimated to be 29.47 ac -ft for Phase 1. Consumptive Use The maximum annual consumptive use at this site during the mining operation is estimated to be 55.05 ac -ft for Phase 1. Replacement Water The replacement of consumptive uses at the site is will be accounted for in a substitute water supply plan (SWSP) approved by the State Engineer. The SWSP will be obtained prior to any mining activities occurring that expose groundwater. Surrounding Water Rights The attached Figure G-1 shows the permitted wells within 600 feet of the mining limits. The well information and locations were obtained from the Division of Water Resources online mapping well permit locator. This well and water rights information was cross checked with the State's CDSS. Between the sources, all permitted and decreed wells are included. Table G-1 below is a corresponding list of wells as numbered in Figure G-1. JoT Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Table G-1 - Permitted and Decreed Wells Within 600 Feet of Mining Limits Map ID Permit No Structure ID Well Name Owner Address City State Zip Code 1 102669-A W C Mathews 3791 E 18th Street Greeley CO 80631 2 118187-A Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80631 3 76222-F Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80631 At the time of SWSP application/approval, a new gravel pit well permit will be applied for/obtained to include the evaporative and operational losses from the property. If the proposed use of groundwater at the DPG Mining site results in material injury to surrounding wells, J-2 Contracting Company will ensure that all necessary measures are taken to address the issues. Water Quality An NPDES permit will be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for the DPG Mining site prior to discharging any groundwater that is dewatered from the site. This permit will be kept current and amended as necessary to ensure that any water discharged from the site will meet the permitted water quality standards. Impacts to Groundwater/Hydrologic Balance J-2 Contracting Company will monitor the groundwater levels surrounding the site and provide groundwater recharge if necessary via perimeter ditches/ponds. J-2 Contracting Company will construct these ditches/ponds in the locations where direct discharge to an existing adjacent irrigation lateral is not available to ensure that stabilized groundwater levels are maintained. They will discharge dewatering flows into existing adjacent irrigation laterals where possible to limit the disturbance to the surrounding land. Slurry wall liners are proposed around the individual phases and will likely be installed either shortly after mining has begun or prior to mining starting. The only phase that mining may start prior to the slurry wall installation being completed is Phase 1. To summarize the mitigation process, as each phase of mining/dewatering occurs it will draw down the surrounding groundwater level to some extent. J-2 Contracting Company will monitor the groundwater levels adjacent to mine as each phase progresses. If groundwater levels drop to a level that prevents an adjacent well from performing acceptably, according to that well's owner, J-2 Contracting Company will either implement a groundwater recharge ditch/pond near the well in order to raise the groundwater level in the vicinity of the well and hence return it's operation to acceptable standards, or will negotiate an agreement with that well owner to replace the well or provide replacement water via other means until the mining and reclamation activities are concluded. Groundwater wells that are not owned by J-2 Contracting Company (Figure G-1) are potentially located within 600 feet of the mining limits. The exact physical location of these wells will be determined during the SWSP and well permit application processes. If wells are found to be within 600 feet of the mining limits, J-2 Contracting Company will either obtain a well waiver from the owner of the well, or provide an agreement with the well owner that J-2 Contracting wJoT Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Company will mitigate and material damage to the well that is directly attributable to the mining and reclamation of the site. All other wells within 600 feet of the mining limits are either owned by J-2 Contracting Company, or are monitoring wells therefore groundwater impacts to these wells do not need to be addressed. See the attached Piezometer Location Map, and Piezometer Data Summary, which show the locations of monitoring wells around the perimeter of the site that J-2 Contracting Company has either installed or has access to, and the groundwater level data that has been collected for each well. J&T Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application cc N M O O N O ►t) O as -J a co O W I- c 0 a) c .C a C c L. 0 CD a P:\18114 DP( DPG MINING PERMIT BOUNDARY 600 FT OFFSET OF ING PERMIT BOUNDARY 1000 500 0 I 1000 SCALE IN FEET L. J&T Consulting, Inc. 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D Fort Lupton, CO 80621 303-857-6222 J-2 CONTRACTING DPG Gravel Pit Figure G-1 - Surrounding Wells Date: 4.29.19 Job No: 181 1 4 Drawn: CMSI- Scale: 1" = 1000' Sheet: 1 Of: 1 Well Designation DPG MW -1 DPG MW -2 DPG MW -3 DPG MW -4 DPG MW -5 DPG MW -6 DPG MW -7 DPG MW -8 DPG MW -9 Description Southwest Side of Phase 2 Southeast Side of Phase 1 East Side of Phase 1 South East Side of Phase 1 North Northeast Side of Phase 1 Northwest Side of Phase 2 Southeast Side of Phase 3 South Side of Phase 3 and 4 Southeast Side of Phase 4 Top of Well Elevation (ft) 4810.45 4607.52 4606.48 4602.39 4607.94 4610.32 4613.43 4611.63 4606.71 Ground Elevation (ft) 4607.50 4604.82 4603.55 4599.50 4604.64 4607.08 4610.66 4608.93 4603.72 Date Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (ft) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Top of Well (ft) Depth to Groundwater from Ground (It) Elevation of Groundwater (ft) April 19, 2019 10.19 7.24 4600.26 8.92 6.22 4598.60 9.06 6.13 4597.42 5.69 2.80 4596.70 10.10 6.80 4597.84 9.92 6.68 4598.02 10.81 8.04 4597.13 13.19 10.49 4594.75 9.71 6.72 4598.23 May 8, 2019 10.21 7.26 4600.24 8.90 6.20 4598.62 9.08 6.15 4597.40 5.83 2.94 4596.56 10.38 7.08 4597.57 9.90 6.66 4598.04 10.92 8.15 4597.02 13.33 10.63 4594.61 10.31 7.32 4597.63 P:\18114 DPG 11 3ite\Drawings\XreflJT DPG base.dwg. Site, 3/19/2019 4:24.40 PM 1 ? I t ` �Lr ..-,' -'y�. l 1 t .- �.....,\ 9 I \ t t i t 1 f MMS.JA ` 4 1 �•�'1 .•"•101 --� _ wITM 1 1 I. 1 i ..../ ' f \ 1 1 tt 1 - _ ••••• •• • , I • •• ' ••••• " t •• •`a• ,\ 1 /� w -.-...t. .ws .- • \cc \\ k\ks:\ I • • • • • .• ,� •• I • .• • • • • • • \•• •• • • • • v• non* aril • j • i• •I • • f1 • • : •• ; • •'• 4. l •••• • •4. f / • : : • • V I \ t S ' u- s{ •f•• O • \ : •• •• • • • • • • •• \ • • / • • • : • • • • • • •• 1• •• •••• . y__ ^ r e { y,•f•****• it �^ • • • • • • • ..... . • II • • • • • • • .• • • • • • I• ` l i%^r 1 I• . • • • 1 %• • ` • • •• • • • o • • • elosios L 1 {\ y \ • • • •• t? l : : .t• • • • • •.••• • •••••••• •••• • • • •.•• ///�• , / 1 ♦ SCALE IN FEET O I. , «\\\\ • • ••4 • t 1 V) Q O ' mu, rrr I r•n'et a tires rrot• , _ • • a . __^_ _ _ - — —_ — - Sheet: of: 1 1 _; o o Checked By JCY Fife DPG GIS Base W v Drawn By TPY Date 3,19.19 Job # Monitoring Well Map REVISIONS J-2 Contracting Phase DPG Site 1 Mining Map No Dale By Chic Description Iii J&T 305 Fort Ph: 303-857-6222 Consulting, Denver Lupton, ww.j-tconsulting.com tv Avenue CO Fax: 303-857-6224 Inc. - Suite D 80621 EXHIBIT H Wildlife Information The project area was surveyed for general wildlife habitat by Ecological Resource Consultants (ERC). The Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species from ERC is attached which describes the wildlife habitat present on the site and the common species that may be found in the habitat area. ERC conducted this screening for federal and state threatened, endangered and species of concern for the approximately 265 -acre survey area. The following provides key items identified as part of the report: 1. Four primary vegetation communities exist within the survey area and are comprised of Cultivated Cropland, Upland Grassland Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation, Western Cattail Marsh, and Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation (Corner et al. 2003). 2. Generally, there are features on the survey area and the surrounding area that provide general habitat for local songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic invertebrate and small to midsize mammals. However, the majority of the habitat on survey area (75%) is classified as Cultivated Cropland and Upland Grassland Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation which is somewhat degraded from a wildlife perspective by historic and current land use practices. Within the survey area, the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous and Western Cattail Marsh vegetation --communities occupy a smaller percentage of the survey area (24%) but provides a variety of important wildlife values. 3. Based upon literature review and field evaluation of the Survey area, ERC has determined that some migratory birds likely utilize the Survey area. These birds are protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds is prohibited. Generally, the active nesting season for most migratory birds in this region of Colorado occurs between April 1 and August 31. Any future land use changes that may occur on Survey area that remove vegetation during the active nesting season should first ensure that active nests are not disturbed. 4. Raptor nest sites are further protected by the CPW. The CPW has established recommended buffer zones and seasonal activity restrictions for a variety of Colorado raptors. One active red-tailed hawk nest was observed during the field investigation and no CPW mapped buffer zones are located within the survey area. In accordance with CPW guidelines no new disturbance should occur within 1/3 -mile of the active red-tailed hawk nest between February 15 and June 15 or until the young have fledged. Once the nest becomes inactive surface occupancy may resume within the 1/3 -mile buffer and vegetation occupied by the inactive nest may be removed. According to the USFWS Region 6 Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects to Reduce the Risk of Take during the Nesting Season, an active nest survey should be performed "no more than 7- 10 days prior to when work actually begins on the project site" to determine the presence and activity status of nests protected by the MBTA. If work for the project must begin prior to the nest becoming inactive within the 1/3 -mile buffer, further agency coordination would be required. 5. Federally listed threatened and endangered species and/or habitat protected under the ESA were evaluated for the survey area. The survey area is within the occurrence range of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) (PMJM). The PMJM is JaT Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application listed as federally threatened under the ESA. The well -developed Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous habitat along the Cache la Poudre River or South Platte River, within the northern and eastern portion of the survey area are considered potentially suitable habitat for this species. No PMJM individuals were observed on or surrounding the survey area. The majority of the survey area (south, east, and west) is comprised of cultivated cropland (mowed)/ruderal herbaceous vegetation thus does not provide habitat suitable for this species. The sections of suitable habitat are not continuous throughout the survey area with sections of the river banks too incised to support the structural habitat layers associated with PMJM habitat. The project proposes that a 100 to 140 -foot -buffer be maintained between the Cache la Poudre River and the boundary of the impact area which does preserve much of the potential PMJM habitat. No PMJM populations are known to occur within the area. The nearest known population is approximately 10 miles southwest of the survey area along the South Platte River near the town of Milliken, Colorado. Activities associated with the project may result in loss of potential PMJM habitat. The proposed project and any future land use changes may affect potential habitat of this species however is not likely to adversely affect this species. The proposed project and any future land use changes may affect, not likely to adversely affect this species. 6. Any future project which may be water related or determined to be a water depletion to the South Platte River Basin may potentially be considered an adverse effect to water depletion species. The survey area does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species affected by depletions to the South Platte River. The species do not occur within the survey area therefore the proposed project and any future land use change will not directly adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. It is assumed herein that proper augmentation plans are in place and the project will not result in a water depletion and therefore not be considered an adverse effect to these species. Furthermore, it is assumed that no federal nexus would be required and therefore, South Platte River Basin depletion species are not concerned. Based on these assumptions and our current understanding of the project, no adverse effect is likely to occur to these species. 7. Upon review of species identified as State endangered or threatened, protected by the CPW under Colorado Statute Title 33, no species are potentially present within the survey area. No individuals or habitat for state listed threatened and endangered species would be impacted by any future land use changes. Attached is ERC's Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species. MT Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. 5672 Juhls Drive "' Boulder, CO'" 80301 "' (303) 679-4820 Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species DPG Site Weld County, Colorado May 8, 2019 Prepared By: Matthew Boyer, Project Ecologist Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) 5672 Juhls Drive Boulder, Colorado 80301 (303) 679-4820 x105 matthew@erccolorado.net Prepared For: J-2 Contracting Company 105 Coronado Court, Unit A-101 Fort Collins CO 80525 970-392-0694 Contact: Chris Leone Email: chrisleone@J2Contracting.com ERC PROJECT #1195-1901 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species DPG Site Weld County, Colorado May 8, 2019 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 2.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 3 3.0 SCREENING METHODOLOGY 9 4.0 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT (NON -REGULATED) 9 5.0 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT 10 6.0 SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 11 COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT (GAURA NEOMEXICANA VAR. COLORADENSIS) 13 PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE (ZAPUS HUDSONIUS PREBLEI) 13 UTE LADIES' -TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) 14 7.0 STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 14 BLACK -FOOTED FERRET (MUSTELA NIGRIPES) 16 BURROWING OWL (ATHENE CUNICULARIA) 16 RIVER OTTER (LONTRA CANADENSIS) 17 8.0 SUMMARY 17 9.0 REFERENCES 20 Figures FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3 -VEGETATION COMMUNITY MAP ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 1.0 INTRODUCTION Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) has prepared this report at the request of J-2 Contracting Company. The approximately 265 -acre property referred to as the DPG Site is located in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado (survey area). The survey area is under consideration for potential future land use changes that will consist of a four phased aggregate extraction operation, which will likely alter a majority of the current survey area landscape, therefore this report has been prepared to identify potential federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and/or habitat that could exist on or immediately surrounding the survey area. In addition, this report provides a cursory screening of general wildlife use characteristics and existing vegetation community types. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Colorado Statute Title 33. 2.0 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The survey area is generally located southeast of the intersection of East 8th Avenue and Weld County Parkway in the Weld County, Colorado in the Outlet Cache la Poudre River (HUC 101900071008) and Owl Creek -South Platte River watershed (HUC 101900030607). The survey area is located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 5 North, Range 65 West, in Weld County (latitude 40.420595° north, longitude -104.609899° west). From the intersection of 1-25 and US -34, the survey area can be accessed by heading east for approximately 1 mile on East 56th Avenue, then east on US -34 for approximately 20.3 mile until County Road 47 %2. Take County Road 47 %z north for 1.0 mile and turn northwest onto County Road 49. Continue east on County Road 49 for 1.3 miles and the survey area is accessible by a dirt access road to the east. The survey area is comprised of farm fields, a single-family dwelling, several manmade seasonally irrigated depressions and ditches, dirt access roads, the Cache Ia Poudre River, and associated wetlands. Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a location map and US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the survey area. The survey area comprises approximately 265 -acres and has an average elevation of 4,600 feet above mean sea level. The vicinity of the survey area is comprised largely agricultural land with pockets of wooded areas and a single-family dwelling. Land neighboring the survey area includes the South Platte River and Mitani-Tokuyasu State Wildlife Area to the east; Holly Avenue and the South Platte River to the south; the Cache la Poudre to the north; Weld County Road to the west. The USGS topographic map shows a perennial stream identified as Cache le Poudre River and an intermittent stream flowing to and from the Cache la Poudre River in sections of the northern portion of the survey area. Four primary vegetation communities exist within the survey area and are comprised of Cultivated Cropland, Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous, Western Cattail Marsh, and Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation (Corner et al. 2003) (refer to Figure 3). Cultivated Cropland comprise most of the uplands within the central, southern, and western portions of the survey area. All of the agricultural fields had recently been tilled at the time of the field investigation. The northern portion of the survey area abutting the riparian area along the Cache Ia Poudre River consists of Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation and is dominated by western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), western tansymustard (Descurainia pinnata), and whitetop (Cardaria draba). 3 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening The northern portion of the survey area abutting the Cache la Poudre River can be described as Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous vegetation. Within this habitat type occurs both riparian wetland habitat and mesic upland habitat. Upland forested areas are dominated by crack willow (Salix fragilis) and plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) overstory trees with a mixed shrub and herbaceous understory. Riparian wetland habitat associated with the Cache la Poudre is comprised mainly of shrub and forested habitat exhibiting species of narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The Western Cattail Marsh vegetation community occurs in the basins located in the north central portion of the survey area. This community is dominated by narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), common three -square (Schoenoplectus pungens), and narrowleaf dock (Rumex stenophyllus). The basins appear to be manmade and are separated by upland berms. 4 � ERC Prepared BY. FRC 5672 Juklz Drive Boulder, CO 80301 P03)679-4820 ERC 0: 1195-1901 L 8El� 9; DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening C'zW*t} R AI 4 G: FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP DPG SITE PROJECT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Legend Survey Area Approxmiate Location toot St tlnvt a 1,750 3.500 'Feet 5 ERC Prepared By: A ERC 5672 Jutrls Drive Boulder. CO 60301 (303/ 679-4920 ERG *.1195-1901 DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DPG SITE PROJECT {I'VE LD COUNTY, COLORADO Legend Survey Area Approxmiate Location 1750 6 A ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Refer to Photos 1-6 below for typical characteristics within the survey area. Photo 1. View east at the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous vegetation community situated in the northern portion of the survey area along the Cache la Poudre River. •< ♦yam• �7 y ? 1"? °' Ica / i Mir3t7 •;*. tY i .a „ 1 4Zi`Yyt Photo 2. Overview looking northeast at the Cultivated Cropland vegetation community in the eastern portion of the survey area. Photo 3. View east at an example of the Western Cattail Photo 4. View southeast at the Upland Grassland and Ruderal vegetation community within the north central portion of the Herbaceous vegetation community in the northern portion of survey area. the survey area. Photo 5. View of a yellow-rumped warbler in a plains cottonwood tree near the Cache la Poudre River in the of the survey area. northern portion of the survey area. Photo 6. View of a great blue heron in the southern portion 7 Prepared By: ERC 5672 it tls Drive Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 ERG #: 1195-1901 Figure 3 VEGETATION COMMUNITY AND Wi LDU FE MAP DPG SITE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Legend Sy rveyA rea '' t ..s Raptor Nests k.1tive MBTh Nests 11111 43 Mile Surer Western Great Plains Riparian. ,Woodland and HerbaoeoLE Western. Cattail Marsh Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous Cuitivatd Cropland r�� ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 3.0 SCREENING METHODOLOGY ERC conducted a literature review as part of initial data collection for preparation of this report. Among others, ERC reviewed the available literature sources including; CPW information and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federal Register. A field inspection was subsequently conducted on May 1, 2019 to identify and document the presence of natural vegetation communities, general wildlife use and potential for threatened and endangered species/habitat. Upon review of all available resources, including literature and field inspections, ERC provides the following determination for the survey area. 4.0 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT (NON -REGULATED) Wildlife utilizes the general landscape in a multitude of ways and uses a variety of habitats as areas of permanent inhabitance, seasonal inhabitance, breeding grounds, migratory routes, for foraging purposes, or as a temporary shelter. Potential wildlife habitat includes lands characterized as Western Cattail Marsh, Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous, Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous, and Cultivated Cropland vegetation. Historic and current land use practices have restricted the development of any significant natural vegetation communities within a majority of the survey area, which limits the overall quality of potential wildlife habitat. Non-native species or ruderal native species which permeate the vegetation communities generally do not provide quality habitat for most wildlife. Although somewhat degraded and lacking in native biodiversity, the agricultural and ruderal herbaceous vegetation communities within the survey area do provide a number of wildlife benefits within the larger reg1onal landscape. Such lands often serve as a buffer between natural areas, providing food, cover, nesting and open -space habitat which allow movement and exchange of plant and animal populations. Cultivated Cropland and Upland Grassland Ruderal Herbaceous uplands are not typically considered of high ecological value to wildlife, but these habitat types have beneficial values to certain wildlife species. These areas at a minimum are considered "open space" providing limited foraging and hunting grounds, refuge and nesting. The Cultivated Cropland vegetation community within the survey area occupies a majority of the land cover percentage of the survey area (58%), occurring in the southern, eastern, and western portions of the survey area. The agricultural land which is present across the survey area has largely replaced the native shortgrass prairie habitat which would have been present in this region. This vegetation community had been recently tilled at the time of the field investigation and generally lacked vegetation in the survey area. The Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation community occupies approximately 17% of the survey area and occurs south of the Cache la Poudre River riparian corridor. This community is dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and a variety of ruderal forbs. The Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous community appears to be frequently disturbed. Non-native species or ruderal native species which permeate these vegetation communities generally do not provide quality habitat for most wildlife. In general, agriculture practices have altered the structure, function, community composition, and habitat value of land within the survey area. The Western Cattail Western Marsh and Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation communities can be considered somewhat valuable to wildlife by providing shelter, foraging habitat, nesting habitat, and act as a movement corridor for various small to mid -size mammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles. The Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous 9 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening vegetation community within the survey area occupies approximately 20% along the Cache la Poudre in the northern portion of the survey area and along the South Platte in the eastern portion of the survey area. This habitat is a forested riparian area exhibiting overstory canopy trees, midstory shrubs and dense herbaceous understory cover. Overstory canopy trees and midstory shrubs, situated near an agricultural landscape, can provide potential roosting and nesting habitat for visiting and residential raptors and smaller migratory birds. The Western Cattail Marsh vegetation community within the survey area occupies a small percentage of the survey area (4%) in the north central portion of the survey area. This habitat is dominated by narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and saltgrass (Distichilis spicata). Cattail marsh provides unique valuable habitat qualities for certain species, including nesting materials, foraging opportunities, and a seasonal water source. The remaining 1% of the land cover consists of roads, structures, and surface water. Some local wildlife species that may use this habitat within the Survey area includes Canada geese (Branta canadensis), common mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Great Plains toad (Anaxyrus cognatus), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), garter snake (Thamnophis sp.), and various other species of fish and aquatic invertebrate. • Generally, there are features on the survey area and the surrounding area that provide general habitat for local songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic invertebrate and small to mid- size mammals. However, the majority of the habitat on survey area is classified as cultivated cropland and ruderal herbaceous vegetation which is somewhat degraded from a wildlife perspective by historic and current land use practices. Within the survey 'area, the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous and Western Cattail Marsh communities occupy a smaller percentage of the survey area; however, these communities do provide significantly higher value wildlife habitat, specifically along the Cache La Poudre River. 5.0 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 730-712). The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. In Colorado, all birds except for the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and rock pigeon (Columba livia) are protected under the MBTA. A total of 523 migratory bird species are known to occur in the Mountain - Prairie Region (USFWS Region 6, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado); 320 of the 523 migratory bird species are known to breed in USFWS Region 6. Migratory birds likely exist within the survey area. The mature overstory cottonwood trees and open shrub midstory within the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation community on the eastern portion of the survey area provide potential habitat for migratory birds. Several migratory birds were also directly observed within the survey area, including mourning dove, black -billed magoie (Pica hudsonia), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), western grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), mallards, western meadowlark, red -winged blackbird, black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), blue jay (Cyanotta cristata), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), and chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina). Such birds are 10 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds (or their parts and nests) is prohibited under the MBTA. • Based upon literature review and field inspection of the survey area, ERC has determined that some migratory birds likely utilize the survey area. These birds are protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds is prohibited. Future land use changes that may occur on survey area which remove vegetation should first ensure that active nests are not disturbed. Generally, the active nesting season for most migratory birds in this region of Colorado occurs between April 1 and August 31. Three active migratory bird nests, two black -billed magpie and one American robin, were observed during the survey area investigation (Figure 3). CPW recommends that active migratory bird nest protected under the MBTA be left undisturbed until the juvenile bird have fledged or until the nest is no longer in use. The MBTA does not restrict disturbances to inactive nests or the surrounding habitat. • In addition, active raptor nest sites are further protected by the MBTA and CPW. The CPW has established recommended buffer zones and seasonal activity restrictions for a variety of Colorado raptors. One active raptor nest was observed just outside of the eastern survey area boundary and three inactive raptor nests were observed in or just outside of the survey area. The active nest was being attended by a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) during the field inspection. A bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was observed flying west in the northwest corner of the survey area, along the Cache la Poudre River riparian corridor. A pair of Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni) were observed foraging in the southeastern portion of the survey area. A Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) was observed flying through the canopy east of the basins in the north central portion of the survey area. The bald eagle, Swainson's hawks, and Cooper's hawk were not observed in or near any of the raptor nest sites. No CPW mapped buffer zones are located within the survey area (CPW 2019). • In accordance with CPW guidelines no new disturbance should occur within 1/3 -mile of the active red- tailed hawk nest between February 15 and June 15 or until the young have fledged. Once the nest becomes inactive surface occupancy may resume within the 1/3 -mile buffer and vegetation occupied by the inactive nest may be removed. According to the USFWS Region 6 Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects to Reduce the Risk of Take during the Nesting Season, an active nest survey should be performed "no more than 7-10 days prior to when work actually begins on the project site" to determine the presence and activity status of nests protected by the MBTA. If work for the project must begin prior to the nest becoming inactive within the 1/3 -mile buffer, further agency coordination would be required. 6.0 SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 The ESA of 1973 was enacted by the United States to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems that they depend on. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either "endangered" or "threatened"; both designations are protected by law. The ESA is administered by the USFWS. The USFWS has developed project specific species lists, available online by request, identifying threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and candidate species protected under the ESA that may occur within the boundary of the proposed project and/or may be affected by the proposed project (USFWS 2019) (Tracking Number: 06E24000-2019-SLI-0754). The species list for the survey area has identified a total of nine threatened or endangered species within the project area. Species Not within Range of the Survey area The following federally listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur within Weld 11 � ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening County. However, these species are not known to exist within the specific vicinity of the survey area and/or have specific habitat requirements (i.e., elevation range) that are not common in the vicinity of the survey area. Common Name Scientific Name Status Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Federally Threatened • The survey area does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species listed above. The species are not likely to occur within the survey area therefore any future land use changes would not likely adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. Water Depletions Species The USFWS under the ESA has determined that water depletions in the South Platte River Basin are considered an adverse effect to the listed species identified below. The survey area is considered to be located within the South Platte River Basin. Common Name Scientific Name Status Least tern Sternula antillarium Federally Endangered Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhycchus albus Federally Endangered Piping plover Charadrius melodus Federally Threatened Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara Federally Threatened Whooping crane Grus Americana Federally Endangered Any water related project conducted in the Platte River Basin that has a federal nexus; such as federal funding or a federal permits (i.e., Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit), is subject to ESA Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS. The consultation is a mandate for water depletion projects that may adversely affect threatened and endangered species that rely on the South Platte River. • The survey area does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species listed above. The species do not occur within the survey area therefore the proposed project and any future land use change will not directly adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. • The proposed project is an aggregate extraction operation (sand and gravel pit). As part of such operations, formalized augmentation plans are in place to ensure no water depletions occur. A hydraulically impermeable slurry wall is proposed to be installed around the perimeter of the mining operation impacts to ensure no depletions occur during project operations. It is assumed herein that proper augmentation plans are in place and the project will not result in a water depletion and therefore not be considered an adverse effect to these species. • Furthermore, it is assumed that no federal funding, federal permits, or federal authorization (federal nexus) would be required and therefore, South Platte River Basin depletion species are not concerned. • Based on these assumptions and our current understanding of the project, no adverse effect is likely to occur to these species. Species Potentially within Range of the Survey area The following federally listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur or historically occur within Weld County (USFWS 2015). The Survey area is located within the potential known range for these species to occur. Further analysis was conducted to determine if the species or habitat has the 12 As ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening potential to exist on the Survey area considering survey area -specific conditions and characteristics. A brief explanation is provided as to the species life cycle, habitat requirements and potential occurrence on the Survey area. The Survey area is not within designated critical habitat of any federally listed species. Common Name Scientific Name Status Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Federally Threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Federally Threatened Ute Ladies' -tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Federally Threatened COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT (GAURA NEOMEXICANA VAR. COLORADENSIS) The Colorado butterfly plant is listed as federally threatened under the ESA. This plant species is a short- lived, perennial herb endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows of floodplain areas in southeastern Wyoming, north central Colorado, and extreme western Nebraska. This early to mid-seral stage species occurs primarily in habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains, with vegetation that is relatively open and not overly dense or overgrown. The conversion of natural wet meadows and natural riparian corridors to agricultural land and urban development is the primary threat to the continued existence of the species (Federal Register 2000). • The riparian and wetland habitats within the survey area do not exhibit typical habitat of the Colorado butterfly plant. The wetlands are mostly overgrown with dense herbaceous vegetation and/or tree/shrub canopy cover. Furthermore, the Colorado butterfly plant is known to occur at elevations of 5,000-6,400 feet which is not within the elevation range of the survey area (survey area is at an average elevation of 4600 feet) (Federal Register 2000). Neither individuals nor potential habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant were observed on or immediately surrounding the survey area. The proposed project and any future land use changes are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE (ZAPUS HUDSONIUS PREBLEI) On May 13, 1998 the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule to list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) as a federally threatened species under the ESA. PMJM range extends from southwestern Wyoming through eastern Colorado generally below 7,600 feet. Armstrong et al. (1997) described typical PMJM habitats as "well -developed plains riparian vegetation with relatively undisturbed grassland and a water source in close proximity." Also noted was a preference for "dense herbaceous vegetation consisting of a variety of grasses, forbs and thick shrubs" (USFWS 1999). This species is known to regularly travel into adjacent uplands to feed and hibernate. The PMJM hibernates in an underground burrow from September to May. PMJM bears two to three litters per year, averaging five young per litter, in a grass - lined nest. In general, PMJM surveys are recommended for areas with suitable habitat in Weld County below 7,600 feet and within 300 feet of vegetated irrigation canals, ditches, and wetlands. Areas that are highly disturbed or modified (including landscaped lots and paved areas) or wetland areas dominated by cattails are excluded from this recommendation. No populations of the PMJM are known to occur within the vicinity of the survey area (UDFCD 2010). Further, the survey area is not designated as Critical Mouse Habitat by the USFWS (CPW 2019). The nearest known critical habitat occurs at Critical Habitat Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Larimer County. No Critical Habitat Units occur in Weld County. The USFWS Mouse Block Clearance Map for the Denver Metro Area (USFWS 2010) which identifies areas exempt from further review for PMJM habitat, shows the survey 13 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening area does not occur within the Block Clearance Zone, indicating a potential presence of the PMJM within the survey area. • No PMJM individuals were observed on or surrounding the survey area. The majority of the survey area (south, east, and west) is comprised of cultivated cropland (mowed)/ruderal herbaceous vegetation thus does not provide habitat suitable for this species. However, the northern and eastern portion of the survey area near the South Platte River and along the Cache la Poudre River, respectively, do comprise sections of well -developed forested, shrub, and herbaceous habitat which is considered potentially suitable habitat for this species. The sections of suitable habitat are not continuous throughout the survey area with portions of the riverbanks too incised to support the structural habitat layers associated with PMJM habitat. The USFWS recommends that projects within 300 feet of 100 -year floodplains associated with rivers, creeks, and their tributaries be assessed as to their potential direct impacts and indirect impacts to PMJM habitat (USFWS 2004). The project proposes that a 100 to 140 -foot -buffer be maintained between the Cache la Poudre River and the boundary of the impact area which does preserve much of the potential PMJM habitat. No PMJM populations are known to occur within the area. The nearest known population is approximately 10 miles southwest of the survey area along the South Platte River near the town of Milliken, Colorado. Activities associated with the project may result in loss of potential PMJM habitat. The proposed project and any future land use changes may affect potential habitat of this species however is not likely to adversely affect this species. UTE LADIES' -TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) The Ute ladies' -tresses is listed as federally threatened under the ESA. The Ute ladies' -tresses occurs in seasonally moist soils and wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams and.their associated. floodplains below 6,500 feet in elevation in certain areas of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada. Typical sites include early successional riparianhabitats such as point bars, sand bars, and low lying gravelly, sandy, or cobbly edges. They seem to require "permanent subirrigation", conditions where the water table is close to the surface, but they are not tolerant of permanent standing water (USFWS 1992). Typical habitat is open and sparsely vegetated, populations decline if trees and shrubs invade the habitat. They do not compete well with aggressive species such as reed canary grass or monocultures of cattails. • A majority of the survey area is comprised of upland agricultural land or herbaceous wetland habitat dominated by monocultures of cattails or dense herbaceous vegetation which is not conducive of this species. The riparian area along the Cache la Poudre River do not consist of point bars, sand bars, or low-lying gravelly, sandy, or cobbly edges. The proposed project would not impact the riparian corridor along the Cache la Poudre. No Ute ladies' -tresses or suitable habitat were identified in the survey area. The proposed project and any land use changes are not likely to adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. 7.0 STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Species identified as state threatened or endangered are protected by the CPW under Colorado Statute Title 33. State regulations prohibit "any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment" any species or subspecies listed as state endangered or threatened. The CPW also has identified State Species of Special Concern, which are species or subspecies of native wildlife that are currently vulnerable in their Colorado range and have the potential to become threatened or endangered (CPW 2010). Species of Special Concern are not protected under State regulations but the 'take' of individuals and disturbance of 14 DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening their habitat is strongly discouraged. All state listed species were screened as potential inhabitants of the survey area based on general habitat requirements and CPW Species Profiles (CPW 2015). ERC evaluated the species listed by CPW as threatened or endangered that could potentially exist on the survey area. All animal species listed above as threatened or endangered by the USFWS are also listed by the CPW as threatened or endangered, respectively, therefore were not duplicated below. Species Not within Range of the Survey area The following listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur within the state (CPW 2019). However, these species are not known to exist within the specific vicinity of the survey area and/or have specific habitat requirements (i.e., elevation range) that are not common in the vicinity of the survey area (CPW 2019 and USFWS 2019). Common Name Scientific Name Status Boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas State Endangered Southwestern flycatcher willow Empidonax traillii extimus State Endangered Lesser prairie -chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus State Threatened Arkansas darter Etheostoma cragini State Threatened Bonytail Gila elegans State Endangered Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus State Endangered Humpback chub Gila cypha State Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius State Threatened Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias State Threatened Rio grande sucker Catostomus plebeius State Endangered Lake chub Couesius plumbeus State Endangered Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus State Endangered Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis State Endangered Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos State Endangered Southern redbelly dace Phoxinus erythrogaster State Endangered Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni State Threatened Common shiner Luxilus cornutus State Threatened Gray wolf Canis lupus State Endangered Black -footed ferret Mustela nigripes State Endangered Grizzly bear Ursus arctos State Endangered Lynx Lynx canadensis State Endangered Wolverine Gulo gulo State Endangered Kit fox Vulpes macrotis State Endangered • The survey area does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species listed above. The species are not likely to occur within the survey area and therefore, the proposed project or any future land use changes would not likely adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. 15 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Species Potentially within Range of the Survey area The following state listed threatened and endangered species are identified to occur or historically occur within Weld County. The Survey area is located within the potential known range for these species. Further analysis was conducted to determine if the species or habitat has the potential to exist on the Survey area considering survey area -specific conditions and characteristics. A brief explanation is provided as to the species life cycle, habitat requirements and potential occurrence on the survey area. Common Name Scientific Name Status Black -footed Ferret Mustela nigripes State Endangered Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia State Threatened River otter Lontra canadensis State Threatened BLACK -FOOTED FERRET (MUSTELA NIGRIPES) The black -footed ferret (BFF) (Mustela nigripes) is a medium-sized mustelid (a member of the weasel family). The BFF is the only ferret species native to the Americas. Its historical range spanned much of western North America's intermountain and prairie grasslands, extending from Canada to Mexico. Historically, BFF habitat coincided with habitats of black -tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus), Gunnison's prairie dog (C. gunnisoni), and white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus). Prairie dogs make up more than 90% of the BFF's diet. BFF's are limited to open habitat, the sane habitat used by prairie dogs: grasslands, steppe, and shrub steppe. it depends largely on prairie dogs: ferrets prey on prairie dogs and utilize their burrows for shelter and denning (Hillman and Clark, 1980). It has been estimated that about 40-60 hectares of prairie dog colony are needed to support one ferret (Belant and Biggins 2008). BFF's once numbered in the tens of thousands, but due to a combination of human -induced threats they were believed to be extinct twice in the 20th century. As of 2015, BFFs have been reintroduced in the wild at 24 survey areas across 8 states, Canada, and Mexico. • No BFF individuals were observed on or surrounding the survey area. No black -tailed prairie dog colonies were observed during the field inspection. According to the USFWS and the CPW, the survey area is located within the Block Clearance Area for BFF survey areas in Colorado (USFWS 2009). The Block Clearance means that land within in the Block Clearance Area no longer contains any wild free - ranging black -footed ferrets and that activities within these areas that result in the removal of black - tailed prairie dogs and/or their habitat will no longer be required to meet the USFWS survey guidelines for black -footed ferrets, or undergo consultation under Section 7 of the ESA (USFWS 2009). The proposed project and any future land use changes within the survey area should not adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. BURROWING OWL (ATHENE CUNICULARIA) The burrowing owl (owl) is listed as a state threatened species in Colorado. The owl is small (length of 24 centimeters), long-legged, boldly spotted, and barred with brown and white. The owl is a breeding species across the plains of eastern Colorado however rarely winters in the state. Nesting habitat is abandoned burrows, especially prairie dog colonies, located in grasslands, mountain parks, well -drained steppes, deserts, prairies and agricultural lands from late March through October. The owl can usually be observed on low perches such as fence posts, dirt mounds or the ground. Clutch size of this owl averages six to seven and incubation lasts up to 30 days. The owlets usually run and forage at 4 weeks and fly at 6 weeks. 16 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Primary threats to existence of this species are habitat loss due to intensive agriculture, habitat degradation and fragmentation due to control of burrowing mammals and predation by cats and dogs. • No owl individuals were observed on or surrounding the survey area. The survey area is located within the overall range of the black -tailed prairie dog; however no active colonies were observed on the Survey area. The survey area is subject to fragmentation and human disturbance limiting the potential use of the survey area by this species. The proposed project and any future land use changes within the survey area should not adversely affect the continued existence or potential habitat of this species. RIVER OTTER (LONTRA CANADENSIS) The river otter is listed as a state threatened species in Colorado. River otters vary in length from 26-42 inches, with males larger than females. Their long tapered tails make up about one-third of their length. River otters historically ranged throughout most of the United States and Canada but were extirpated from much of their range in the west. Reintroductions of otter to Colorado began in 1976, and they are now found in small numbers throughout most of western Colorado with a more scattered distribution in eastern Colorado (CPW 2019). River otters may inhabit nearly every aquatic habitat however, they are most likely to occupy beaver ponds, stream channels, and warm water sloughs exhibiting healthy riparian vegetation, woody debris, and log jams (CPW 2019). •_ . No river otter individuals were observed on or surrounding_the survey area. River otter populations are listed as known to occur in Weld County (CPW 2019). However, individuals and populations are still rare occurrences within the front range and eastern plains. Further, preferred habitat is usually associated with beaver activity and structures which do not exist within or near the Survey area. The proposed project and any future land use changes on the survey area are not likely -to adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. 8.0 SUMMARY ERC has conducted this screening for federal and state threatened, endangered and species of concern for the approximately 265 -acre survey area. The following provides key items identified as part of this report: 1. Four primary vegetation communities exist within the survey area and are comprised of Cultivated Cropland, Upland Grassland Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation, Western Cattail Marsh, and Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous vegetation (Comer et al. 2003). 2. Generally, there are features on the survey area and the surrounding area that provide general habitat for local songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, aquatic invertebrate and small to mid- size mammals. However, the majority of the habitat on survey area (75%) is classified as Cultivated Cropland and Upland Grassland Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation which is somewhat degraded from a wildlife perspective by historic and current land use practices. Within the survey area, the Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland, and Herbaceous and Western Cattail Marsh vegetation communities occupy a smaller percentage of the survey area (24%) but provides a variety of important wildlife values. 17 ..� ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 3. Based upon literature review and field evaluation of the Survey area, ERC has determined that some migratory birds likely utilize the Survey area. These birds are protected under the MBTA, and killing or possession of these birds is prohibited. Generally, the active nesting season for most migratory birds in this region of Colorado occurs between April 1 and August 31. Any future land use changes that may occur on Survey area that remove vegetation during the active nesting season should first ensure that active nests are not disturbed. 4. Raptor nest sites are further protected by the CPW. The CPW has established recommended buffer zones and seasonal activity restrictions for a variety of Colorado raptors. One active red-tailed hawk nest was observed during the field investigation and no CPW mapped buffer zones are located within the survey area. In accordance with CPW guidelines no new disturbance should occur within 1/3 -mile of the active red-tailed hawk nest between February 15 and June 15 or until the young have fledged. Once the nest becomes inactive surface occupancy may resume within the 1/3 -mile buffer and vegetation occupied by the inactive nest may be removed. According to the USFWS Region 6 Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects to Reduce the Risk of Take during the Nesting Season, an active nest survey should be performed "no more than 7-10 days prior to when work actually begins on the project site" to determine the presence and activity status of nests protected by the MBTA. If work for the project must begin prior to the nest becoming inactive within the 1/3 -mile buffer, further agency coordination would be required. • Federally listed threatened and endangered species and/or habitat protected under the ESA were evaluated for the survey area. The survey area is within the occurrence range of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) (PMJM). The PMJM is listed as federally threatened under the ESA. The well -developed Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Herbaceous habitat along the Cache la Poudre River or South Platte River, within the northern and eastern portion of the survey area are considered potentially suitable habitat for this species. No PMJM individuals were observed on or surrounding the survey area. The majority of the survey area (south, east, and west) is comprised of cultivated cropland (mowed)/ruderal herbaceous vegetation thus does not provide habitat suitable for this species. The sections of suitable habitat are not continuous throughout the survey area with sections of the river banks too incised to support the structural habitat layers associated with PMJM habitat. The project proposes that a 100 to 140 -foot -buffer be maintained between the Cache la Poudre River and the boundary of the impact area which does preserve much of the potential PMJM habitat. No PMJM populations are known to occur within the area. The nearest known population is approximately 10 miles southwest of the survey area along the South Platte River near the town of Milliken, Colorado. Activities associated with the project may result in loss of potential PMJM habitat. The proposed project and any future land use changes may affect potential habitat of this species however is not likely to adversely affect this species. 5. The proposed project and any future land use changes may affect, not likely to adversely affect this species. 6. Any future project which may be water related or determined to be a water depletion to the South Platte River Basin may potentially be considered an adverse effect to water depletion species. The survey area does not contain the specific habitat characteristics necessary to support the species affected by depletions to the South Platte River. The species do not occur within the survey area 18 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening therefore the proposed project and any future land use change will not directly adversely affect the continued existence or available habitat of the species. It is assumed herein that proper augmentation plans are in place and the project will not result in a water depletion and therefore not be considered an adverse effect to these species. Furthermore, it is assumed that no federal nexus would be required and therefore, South Platte River Basin depletion species are not concerned. Based on these assumptions and our current understanding of the project, no adverse effect is likely to occur to these species. 7. Upon review of species identified as State endangered or threatened, protected by the CPW under Colorado Statute Title 33, no species are potentially present within the survey area. No individuals or habitat for state listed threatened and endangered species would be impacted by any future land use changes. This report has been prepared by: ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. Matthew Boyer, Ecologist Reviewed and approved by: David J. Blauch, V.P., Senior Ecologist 19 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening 9.0 REFERENCES Andrews, J.M., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. Armstrong, D.M., et al. Edited by M.E. Bakeman. May 1997. Report on Habitat Findings of the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Presented to the US Fish And Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. April 19, 2007. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. CPW. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 1992. Wildlife in Danger: The status of Colorado's Threatened or Endangered Fish, Amphibians, Birds and Mammals. CPW. Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2019. River Otter Fact Sheet. Available online at: htt ps://c pw. state. co. u s/Doc u m e nts/La n d W ate r/W et la n d s P rog ra m/P rio rityS pec i es/Fa cts h e et -a n d- Habitat-Scorecard_All.pdf . 2007. Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls When Conducting Prairie Dog Control. Revised March. Available at https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Wild lifeSpecies/Profiles/BUOWSurveyProtocol2007.pdf . 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Raptors. Available online at:.;, https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/W ildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuidelines200 8.pdf . 2019. Species Activity Mapping (SAM), Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data. Updated December. Available online at: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7 . 2019. Threatened and Endangered List. Available at http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC- ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. ERO Resources Corp. 2010. Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM), Ute Ladies Tresses Orchid (ULTO) and Colorado Butterfly Plant (CBP) Block Clearances for the Denver Metropolitan Area. Revised 2010. Prepared for Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. ERO Resources Corp., 1842 Clarkson Street, Denver, CO 80230. June 17. Federal Register. May 2000. Vol. 65, Number 96, pages 31298-31299. Proposed Rules: Endangered and Threatened Species: Colorado Butterfly Plant. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . October 2005. Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96, pages 62302-62310. Final Listing: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for the Colorado Butterfly 20 ERC DPG Site Threatened and Endangered Species Screening Plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) From Southeastern Wyoming, Northcentral Colorado, and Extreme Western Nebraska. Kingery, Hugh. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership 1998. USFWS. US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. Colorado State Office. November 23. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/ends pp/protocols/UteLadiesTress 1992.pdf. Accessed April 2012. . 2004. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Survey Guidelines. Revised April 2004. USFWS Ecological Services Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, CO. . 2004a. News Release. Critical Habitat Proposed for the Colorado Butterfly Plant. August 6, 2004. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/04-55.htm. . 2010. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Block Clearance Map for the Denver Metro Area. November 23. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/preble/BLOCK_CLEARANCE/11-23- 2010_USFWS_Prebles_Block_Clea rance_Ma p_for_the_Denver_Metro_Area. pdf . 2010a. Recovery Outline for Gaura neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) May 2010. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/plants/cobutterfly/RecoveryOutlineFina IMay2010.pdf. . 2019. Official Species List. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Consultation Tracking Number 06E24000-2019-SLI-0754. May 6. 21 EXHIBIT I Soils Information According to the Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part, (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey 2.0, National Cooperative Soil Survey), there are eight major soil types within the project area: 1. Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum 2. Ustic Torriorthents, moderately steep The location of these soil types relative to the project area is illustrated on the attached Natural Resources Conservation Service map and legend. Detailed descriptions of each NRCS soil type are below. Map Unit: 3 — Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum Map Unit: 10 — Ellicott -Ellicott sandy — skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded See attached NRCS report for the permit boundary area. JET Consulting, Inc. Journey Ventures, LLC Journey Ventures Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application USDA United States Department of am Agriculture \CS 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 March 4; 2019 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/ portal/nrcs/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://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? 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 Soil Map 5 Soil Map 6 Legend 7 Map Unit Legend 8 Map Unit Descriptions 8 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 10 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum 10 10 —Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded 11 21—Dacono clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 13 22—Dacono clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 15 26—Haverson loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 16 41 —Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 17 52 -Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 18 68—Ustic Torriorthents, moderately steep 20 85 —Water 21 4 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. 5 Custom Soil Resource Report Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AO') Soils O Special 0 4 f 4 4 MAP LEGEND Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points 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 faZ rose Li I 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. 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 17, Sep 10, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 17, 2015 Oct 2, 2017 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. 7 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 274.2 33.0% 10 Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded 407.0 48.9% 21 Dacono clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 2.0 0.2% 22 Dacono clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 7.7 0.9% 26 Haverson loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 1.8 0.2% 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6.3 0.8% 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 3.5 0.4% 68 Ustic Torriorthents, moderately steep 79.4 9.6% 85 Water 49.9 6.0% Totals for Area of Interest 831.8 100.0% 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 8 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 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. 9 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: Swales, streams, flood plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape. Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H1 - 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 Natural 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: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Salt Meadow (R067BY035CO) Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Aquents, Gravelly Substratum Setting Landform: Stream terraces Down -slope shape: Linear 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Recent alluvium Typical profile H1 - 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 Natural 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: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Salt Meadow (R067BY035CO) 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 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 11 Custom Soil Resource Report 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: Drainageways, flood plains on intermittent streams 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 Cl - 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 Natural 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 Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Sandy Bottomland (R067BY031 CO) 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 C1- 13 to 30 inches: very gravelly sand C2 - 30 to 44 inches: very gravelly sand C3 - 44 to 80 inches: very gravelly coarse sand 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural 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 Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Sandy Bottomland (R067BY031 CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Haverson Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Overflow (R067BY036CO) Hydric soil rating: No 21—Dacono clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361y Elevation: 4,550 to 4,970 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 140 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Dacono and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Dacono Setting Landform: Terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: clay loam H2 - 12 to 21 inches: clay loam H3 - 21 to 27 inches: clay loam H4 - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsalirle to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Nunn Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Altvan Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 22—Dacono clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 361z Elevation: 4,550 to 4,970 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period. 140 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Dacono and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Dacono Setting Landform: Terraces Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: clay loam H2 - 12 to 21 inches: clay loam H3 - 21 to 27 inches: clay loam H4 - 27 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) Hydric soil rating: No 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Altvan Percent of map unit: 9 percent Hydric soil rating: No Nunn Percent of map unit: 6 percent Hydric soil rating: No 26—Haverson loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlg0 Elevation: 4,140 to 5,080 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 Haverson, rarely flooded, and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Haverson, Rarely Flooded Setting Landform: Terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Stratified alluvium derived from mixed sources Typical profile Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam A - 4 to 11 inches: loam CI - 11 to 19 inches: loam C2 - 19 to 80 inches: stratified sandy loam to loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Frequency of ponding: None 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 1.0 Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Overflow (R067BY036CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Bijou Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO) 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 17 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 Natural 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 in profile: 7 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 0.5 Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) 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: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) 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: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No 52 —Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3631 18 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 Natural 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 in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO) 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 19 Custom Soil Resource Report 68—Ustic Torriorthents, moderately steep Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3631 Elevation: 4,450 to 5,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 120 to 160 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Ustic torriorthents and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ustic Torriorthents Setting Landform: Escarpments, breaks Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Gravelly alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: gravelly sand H2 - 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 9 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Columbo Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Eckley Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Otero Percent of map unit: 2 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 21 EXHIBIT J Vegetation Information The project site was surveyed for both general vegetation and for the presence of possible wetland areas by Ecological Resource Consultants (ERC). The site is currently agricultural crop and pasture land. ERC's wetland delineation report is attached which includes descriptions of the general vegetation found on the site and wetlands found in the area. Note that jurisdictional wetlands were found on the site. J-2 Contracting Company will not be mining in the areas of the existing irrigation ditches (Patterson/Delta Irrigation Ditch) or areas where there are jurisdictional wetlands. JET Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. 5672 Juhls Drive ^' Boulder, CO ^' 80301 - (303) 679-4820 May 8, 2019 J-2 Contracting Company 105 Coronado Court, Unit A-101 Fort Collins CO 80525 RE: Aquatic Resource Status The enclosed Aquatic Resource Delineation Report (ERC 5-8-19) has identified several aquatic resources (Aquatic Resources A, B, C, D, E and F) within the proposed mining phase limit of the DPG Site. The findings of ERC 5-8-19 have determined that these aquatic resources are likely non -jurisdictional and not subject of Section 404 Clean Water Act. A request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination is pending from the US Army Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory Office (USACE) in order to verify jurisdictional status of all aquatic resources on the DPG Site. Upon verification from the USACE, it is anticipated that the areas identified herein as Aquatic Resources A, B, C, D, E and F will not be considered jurisdictional and will not require any further coordination and/or authorization from the USACE for disturbance associated with the project. All other aquatic resources identified herein (Aquatic Resource G, H, I, J) are likely considered jurisdictional subject of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions or require clarification, please feel free to contact me directly. David J. Blauch, V.P., Senior Ecologist (PWS # 2130) Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. 5672 Juhls Drive - Boulder, CO - 80301- (303) 679-4820 AQUATIC RESOURCE DELINEATION REPORT FOR DPG SITE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO MAY 8, 2019 Prepared By: Matthew Boyer, Project Ecologist Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) 5672 Juhls Drive Boulder, Colorado 80301 (303) 679-4820 x105 matthew@erccolorado.net Prepared For: J-2 Contracting Company 105 Coronado Court, Unit A-101 Fort Collins CO 80525 970-392-0694 Contact: Chris Leone Email: chrisleone@J2Contracting.com ERC Project #1195-1901 ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the delineation of aquatic resources completed by Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) for the DPG Site Property (study area). ERC conducted a formal routine onsite delineation of aquatic resources within the approximately 265 -acre study area located in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado on April 17, 18, and 19, 2019. A total of 18.37 acres of aquatic resources were identified and mapped within the study area which include: 8.01 acres characterized as PEM wetland habitat, 1.23 acres characterized as PSS wetland habitat, 1.29 acres characterized as PSS/PEM wetland habitat, 1.53 acres characterized as PEM/PFO wetland habitat, 5.85 acres (6,186 linear feet) characterized as R2UBG riverine habitat, and 0.46 acre (5,759 linear feet) characterized as R4UBK riverine habitat. All aquatic resources and water features within the study area have been identified herein. The aquatic resource areas were delineated and mapped as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. Aquatic Resources G, H, I, and J appear to contain a direct surface connection to downstream Waters of the US. Aquatic Resource H includes the stream channel and fringe wetlands associated with the Cache la Poudre River, which flows east into the South Platte River, a traditional navigable water (TNWs), approximately 0.8 mile east of the study area. Aquatic Resource G appears to have a direct surface connection to the Cache la Poudre River outside of the study area to the west approximately 575 feet from the project boundary. Aquatic Resource I appears to have a direct surface connection to the South Platte River outside of the study area to the east approximately 325 feet from the project boundary. Aquatic Resource J appears to be an irrigation ditch with a direct surface connection to the South Platte River outside of the study area to the east approximately 120 feet for the project boundary. Aquatic Resources A, B, C, D, E, and F do not appear to contain a direct surface connection to other downstream wetlands or waters of the US and are surrounded by uplands. Aquatic Resources A and B are manmade remnant reclaimed shallow aggregate pits. ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 LOCATION 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY 4 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 4.1 LANDSCAPE SETTING 5 4.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES 5 4.3 UPLAND HABITAT 1 5.0 REFERENCES 5 APPENDIX A Aquatic Resource Delineation Map — Overview & Sheets 1-3 APPENDIX B ERC Wetland Determination Data Forms ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the delineation of aquatic resources completed by Ecological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC) for the DPG Site. The purpose of this report is to provide a formal delineation of aquatic resources within the approximately 265 -acre study area. This report facilitates efforts to document aquatic resource boundary determinations for verification and jurisdictional review by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Report Prepared for (Project Engineer): J-2 Contracting Company 105 Coronado Court, Unit A-101 Fort Collins CO 80525 970-392-0694 Contact: Chris Leone Email: chrisleone@J2Contracting.com 2.0 LOCATION The study area is generally located southeast of the intersection of East 8th Avenue and Weld County Parkway in the Weld County, Colorado in the Outlet Cache la Poudre River (HUC 101900071008) and Owl Creek -South Platte River watershed (HUC 101900030607). The study area is located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 5 North, Range 65 West, in Weld County (latitude 40.420595° north, longitude -104.609899° west). From the intersection of 1-25 and US -34, the study area can be accessed by heading east for approximately 1 mile on East 56th Avenue, then east on US -34 for approximately 20.3 mile until County Road 471/2. Take County Road 47 1/2 north for 1.0 mile and turn northwest onto County Road 49. Continue east on County Road 49 for 1.3 miles and the study area is accessible by a dirt access road to the east. The study area is comprised of farm fields, a single-family dwelling, several manmade seasonally irrigated depressions and ditches, dirt access roads, the Cache la Poudre River, and associated wetlands. Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a location map and US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the study area. 1 O ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report C: tuunty kid 4t 1. O U. Y k w Fatt COMM Len in cat widet cure..a I; r Ifdf b'w ;wµt7J,f.1F : . . Ccuff/ Rival) fl -ti? Legend Survey Area Approxrniate Location jaa? },T Con tt ttc.,4 : 1 1:O6.Ib ;Mail r! f:7 Prepared By: A FRC 5672 JufaD Drive Boulder CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 BBC #_ 1195-1901 FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP DPG SITE PROJECT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1 trt- 2 A ERC Bawl thin Prepared By: As FRC 5672 Atilt Drive Boulder, CO 80301 (303/ 679-4820 EPC #: 1195-1901 FIGURE 2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DPG SITE PROJECT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Legend Survey Area Approxmiate Location .. r S s nit i.r W.lt.Y at If aft ff+ t,T- U a Cr;?', t 3 ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report 3.0 METHODLOGY The aquatic resource delineation was conducted following the methodology enumerated in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (herein referred to as "Supplement") (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2010). During the field inspection, dominant vegetation was recorded, representative hydrologic indicators were noted and soil samples were examined for hydric indicators. Delineation field work for the study area was completed on April 17, 18, and 19, 2017. The weather during the delineation was sunny and dry with gusty winds at approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The conditions observed within the study area were typical for the region and sufficient indicators of vegetation, soils and hydrology were observed to make a wetland determination. The following definitions provided the basis of this aquatic resource delineation. The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) jointly define wetlands as: "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" [40 CFR 230.3(t)]. Three general environmental parameters define a wetland. These parameters must include the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Except under certain situations, evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each of the above parameters must be identified in order to make a positive wetland determination. In addition, waters of the US are also defined as areas that "include essentially all surface waters such as rivers, streams and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all ponds, lakes and reservoirs": The boundaries of some waters of the US (i.e., such as streams or lakes) are further defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is characterized as "the line on the shores established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as: a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, wetland vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas" (USACE 2005). Areas that do not meet any one of the wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and/or wetland hydrology) or non -vegetated stream channel/open water (OHWM) were classified as a non - wetland (upland) and mapped as such. Any area determined to be potential waters of the US was delineated in the field with pink pin flags and ribbon identified with 'WETLAND BOUNDARY' printed on it and sequentially labeled alpha -numerically (i.e. Al, A2...). Each wetland determination point was recorded using a hand-held Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) receiver. The resulting GPS data were post processed using GPS Pathfinder Office 5.85 software. Post processing differential correction provided an average horizontal mapping accuracy of +/- 2 feet. Post -processed GPS data were imported into ArcMap Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Version 10.5) for spatial analysis and mapping. All aquatic resources delineated within the study area are 4 ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report depicted on the Aquatic Resource Delineation Maps dated May 8, 2019 are provided as Appendix A. Wetland Determination data sheets are provided in Appendix B. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 LANDSCAPE SETTING The study area is situated within the Great Plains ecoregion (Bailey 1976) at an approximate elevation of 4,600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The vicinity of the study area is comprised largely agricultural land with pockets of wooded areas and a single-family dwelling. Land neighboring the study area includes the South Platte River and Mitani-Tokuyasu State Wildlife Area to the east; Holly Avenue and the South Platte River to the south; the Cache la Poudre to the north; Weld County Parkway to the west. The landscape within the study area is characterized by the Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous, Cultivated Cropland, Western Cattail Marsh, and Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland vegetation (Comer et al. 2003). The Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland vegetation encompasses the aquatic resource habitats near the South Platte and Cache la Poudre Rivers (Aquatic Resource H), and in the central portion of the study area north of the single-family dwelling. The aquatic resource habitats exhibiting Western Cattail Marsh vegetation occur in topographic depressions (Aquatic Resource A and B) within the north central portion of the study area. The majority of the study area has been in recent agricultural production. The Cultivated Cropland vegetation community occurs throughout the eastern, western, and southern portions of the study area. The Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation community was observed abutting the Cache la Poudre River "riparian area to the south. The USGS topographic map shows a perennial stream identified as Cache le Poudre River (Aquatic Resource H) in sections of the northern portion of the study area. This feature was investigated in the field and the stream channel and associated wetland were delineated. Additionally, an unnamed intermittent stream depicted flowing generally east in an oxbow pattern to and from the Cache la Poudre River in the north central portion of the study area. The unnamed intermittent oxbow stream was evaluated in the field and found to be mostly dominated by upland vegetation with pockets of wetlands (Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F). 4.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES A total of 18.37 acres of aquatic resources were delineated by ERC within the study area. Delineated aquatic resources were classified according to physical and biological characteristics using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin Classification System) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Within the study area, wetland habitat types were classified based on field evaluation and are summarized below in Table 1. Summary of Aquatic Resources Delineated within the Study area. A description of the aquatic resource habitat types is provided as follows. Refer to Table 2 for a list of vegetation identified within the study area (Lichvar et al. 2016). The Aquatic Resource Delineation Map 5 � ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report dated May 8, 2019 is provided as Appendix A. Wetland Determination data sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 1. Summary of Aquatic Resources Delineated within the Study area. Resource Aquatic 1Cowardin CI . sification Location CENTROID (lat/long) Acres Stream Length Feet) (Linear Name A* PEM 40.42095°N, -104.61007°W 4.28 - B* PEM 40.42118°N, -104.61236°W 2.20 - C* PSS 40.42170°N, -104.60861°W 0.09 D* PSS 40.41911°N, -104.61221°W 0.68 - E* PSS 40.41995°N, -104.61412°W 0.43 -- F* PSS 40.42069°N, -104.61488°W 0.03 - G PEM 40.42007°N, -104.61912W 0.86 - H PSS/PEM 40.42356°N, -104.61038°W 1.29 - R2UBG 40.42356°N, -104.61038°W 5.85 6,186 I PEM/PFO 40.42012°N, -104.60404°W 1.53 - :... J PEM 40.41684°N, -104.61175W 0.67 . R4UBK 1 40.41684°N, . -104.61175W 0.46 5,759 TOTAL ONSITE 18.37 11,945 Notes 1 Habitat Type based on Cowardin et al. 1979. *No apparent surface connection to downstream Waters of the US and excavated from uplands. AQUATIC RESOURCES A AND B (4.28 ACRES AND 2.20 ACRES) Aquatic Resources A and B are situated in the bottom of two manmade remnant reclaimed shallow aggregate pits. PEM wetland habitat has developed in the topographic lowest points within the two pits. Aquatic Resources A and B are manmade excavated wholly in uplands, recontoured, revegetated and routinely mowed. Two culverts appear to direct irrigation water into the pits (one culvert from the south in Aquatic Resource D) and one from an upland basin from the north. These culverts appear to direct seasonal irrigation water into the pits, however there is no outflow. Aquatic Resources A and B are surrounded entirely by uplands/uplands berms with no direct surface connection to other Waters of the US. Overall, the vegetation communities of Aquatic Resources A and B are dominated by species such as saltgrass (Distich/is spicata), narrowleaf cattails (Typha angustifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), common three -square (Schoenoplectus pungens), and narrowleaf dock (Rumex stenophyllus) areas contain a seasonal flooded water regime. The dominant species within the wetland areas consists of species designated as OBL-FACW. e ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Soils within Aquatic Resources A and B are gravelly silty clay loam textured meeting the criteria for hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicators of C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots) were observed within Aquatic Resources A and B, in addition to secondary hydrology indicators of B10 (Drainage Patterns), D2 (Geomorphic position), and D5 (FAC-neutral test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resources A and B meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resources A and B comprise a total of 6.48 acres within the study area. Refer to Photos 1-2 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resources A and B. Photo 1. View southwest of PEI/ wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource A. The approximate location of wetland data point DP -Ala is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. • i. 1• ...t‘. f t \. >i .:. .'' i • '�. Y t .. 1 . v.‘j*:‘ '.(t.7.� .' 1J7 rYI 4.• li t ;4•• f f J " .. f.t �••2 .S' 0 J 0 t • 9'y � i v;. ." It >`. b s li .jam . •'!. ::,--111„:":':V•k + F�['� t _'y� * 1h- ;rbl �J.` :::s:-::::;11:.: ,1 «'.'CSR^/y" ♦.A. eY. 44. V� iL t '"' ..t^ y Sri' /F V fti` 4�C. Tw_..ddy Photo 2. View northeast at PEM wetland habitat that is characteristic of Aquatic Resource B. The approximate location of wetland data point DP-B1a is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. AQUATIC RESOURCES C, D, E, AND F (0.09 ACRES, 0.68 ACRES, 0.43 ACRES, AND 0.03 ACRES) Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F comprise PSS wetland habitats situated in four separate topographic depressions separated by manmade upland berms. Each area appears to have been previously excavated wholly in uplands with no direct surface connection to other Wates of the US. Aquatic Resource D appears to contain a direct culvert connection to Aquatic Resource A towards the north. Two additional culverts were observed on the east side of Aquatic Resource D, however only direct flows to uplands. Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F do not appear to contain direct surface connections with any downstream Waters of the U.S. Portions of Aquatic Resource C were recently mowed prior to the delineation. The vegetation communities of Aquatic Resources C, D, E and F are dominated by narrowleaf cattail, reed canarygrass, narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), and narrowleaf dock. Crack willow (Salix fragilis) and plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera) trees were observed in and along the wetland habitat. These areas contain a seasonally flooded water regime. The dominant species within these wetland areas consists of species designated as FAC-OBL. Soils within Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F are clay to clay loam textured meeting the criteria for hydric soil indicators F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of the delineation, primary hydrology indictors such as C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots) were observed within these Aquatic Resources, in addition to secondary hydrology indicators of D2 (Geomorphic Position), D3 (Drainage Patterns), and D5 (FAC-neutral test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F meets the criteria for 7 A. ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F comprise a total of 1.23 acres within the study area. Refer to Photos 3-6 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resources C, D, E, and F. h Y it ry r. ta }y .:,. .'may/ ,• { % '� 1fr Photo 3. View southwest of PSS wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource C. The approximate location of wetland data point DP-C1a is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. Photo 5. View southwest of PSS wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource E. The approximate location of wetland data point DP-E1a is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. AQUATIC RESOURCE G (0.86 ACRE) Photo 4. View northeast at PSS wetland habitat that is characteristic of Aquatic Resource D. The approximate location of wetland data point DP-D1a is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. Photo 6. View northeast at PSS wetland habitat that is characteristic of Aquatic Resource F. The approximate location of wetland data point DP-F1a is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. Aquatic Resource G is comprised of PEM wetland habitat appears to be situated within the remnants of an old oxbow of the Cache la Poudre River in the northwestern portion of the study area just east of Weld County Parkway. Aquatic Resource G is separated from Aquatic Resource H in the study area by uplands. Aquatic Resource G appears to have a downgradient surface connection with Aquatic Resource H outside of the study area boundary to the west. It is likely that hydrology within Aquatic Resource G is supported 8 � ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report by a combination of the groundwater flows, stormwater flows, and from Aquatic Resource H directly during high flows. The vegetation community of Aquatic Resource G is dominated by species such as narrowleaf cattail, soft - stem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), and reed canarygrass. This area contains a permanently flooded water regime. The dominant species within this wetland area consists of species designated as FACW-OBL. Soils within Aquatic Resource G are sandy loam textured meeting criteria for hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). At the time of the delineation, secondary wetland hydrology indicators D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-neutral test) were observed. The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource G meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource G comprises a total of 0.86 acres within the study area. Refer to Photo 7 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource G. Photo 7. View south of PEM wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource G. The approximate location of wetland data point DP-G1a is depicted above. The wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. AQUATIC RESOURCE H (7.14 ACRES and 6,186 LINEAR FEET) Aquatic Resource H comprises the Cache la Poudre River PSS/PEM and R2UBG wetland habitat located along the northern border of the study area. Aquatic Resource H is generally defined by the OHWM and/or a narrow riparian wetland fringe. The wetlands are situated as fringes along the banks of the river and portions of the stream channel are included in the study area. Aquatic Resource H appears to contain a direct surface connection to the South Platte River, a TNW, east of the study area. The vegetation community within Aquatic Resource H (along the riparian wetland fringe) is dominated by aquatic species such as reed canarygrass, and narrowleaf willow. This area contains a permanently flooded water regime. The dominant species within this wetland area consists of species designated as FACW-O B L. 9 411k ERC failianinatilairaiffidlaMtraWirtalinar AlArceCRWeary _ DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Soils within Aquatic Resource H are sandy loam textured meeting criteria for hydric soil indicator F8 (Redox Depressions). At the time of the delineation, secondary wetland hydrology indicators B10 (Drainage Patterns), D2 (Geomorphic Position), and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource H meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource H comprises a total of 7.14 acre (6,186 linear feet) within the study area. Refer to Photos 8-9 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource H. Photo 8. View northwest of PEM wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource H. AQUATIC RESOURCE I (1.53 ACRES) Photo 9. View northeast of area representative of the PSS wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource H. Aquatic Resource I comprises PEM/PFO wetland habitat located in eastern portion of the study area along the boundary. Aquatic Resource I appears to be a remnant of an old oxbow of the South Platte River. Aquatic Resource I appears to contain a direct surface connection to the South Platte River just east of the study area boundary. The vegetation community of Aquatic Resource I is dominated by reed canarygrass, common threesquare, and crack willow. This area contains a temporarily flooded water regime. The dominant species within this wetland are consists of species designated as FACW-OBL. Soils within Aquatic Resource I are sandy clay textured meeting criteria for hydric soil indicators F6 (Redox Dark Surface) and F8 (Redox Depressions). At the time of the delineation, primary wetland hydrology indicator of C3 (Oxidized Rhizospheres Along Living Roots) was present within Aquatic Resource I, in addition to secondary wetland hydrology indicators D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). The wetland habitat within Aquatic Resource I meets the criteria for wetland based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Aquatic Resource I comprises a total of 1.53 acres within the study area. Refer to Photo 10 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource I. 10 O ERC 4 Sff 4 . r is T • H 4 ,gyp .' • -• . 3 is �' 'el.• �+ .--,#a v • . t , ♦•r � .k•.� y r . Photo 10. View south of the PEM/PFO wetland habitat that is characteristic of Aquatic Resource I. Wetland boundary is depicted by the blue line. AQUATIC RESOURCE J (1.13 ACRE and 5,759 LINEAR FEET) DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Aquatic Resource J comprises PEM wetland habitat abutting an unvegetated irrigation ditch (R2UBK) situated along the southern boundary of the study area. Six irrigation ditch gates occur along Aquatic Resource J within the study area. At the time of the delineation, water was flowing east in the 6 to 10 - foot -wide ditch. Wetland vegetation was observed in 2 to 10 -foot -wide patches of fringe abutting the ditch bottom. The delineated boundary is largely based on indicators of hydrology and OHWM as there is a clear line on the banks indicating recent water levels. Where wetland fringes were observed, the vegetation community of Aquatic Resource J is dominated by reed canarygrass. This area contains an artificially flooded water regime. The dominant species within this wetland are consists of species designated as FACW. Aquatic Resource J appears to contain a direct surface connection to the South Platte River offsite of the study area to the east. Aquatic Resource J comprises approximately 1.13 acre (5,759 linear feet) within the study area. Refer to Photos 11-12 below for characteristics of Aquatic Resource J. 11 � ERC Photo 11. View west of the irrigation ditch and PEM wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource J. 4.3 UPLAND HABITAT DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Photo 12. View west of the irrigation ditch and PEM wetland habitat in Aquatic Resource J. Upland habitat within the study area consists primarily of agricultural land. According to the USGS GAP Analysis land cover data set of two primary upland vegetation communities within the study area and include: Cultivated Cropland, Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation (Comer et al. 2003). A summary description of the Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation community which is predominant within the study area is provided as follows. The Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation community encompasses the upland habitat within the study area abutting the Cache la Poudre riparian corridor. The uplands are dominated be smooth brome (Bromus inermis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and various ruderal forb species. Vegetative cover across these areas generally comprises approximately 70-80% cover. Limited tree and shrub cover are present in this community. The cultivated cropland vegetation community within the the study area comprise cultivated currently exhibit tilled rows with sparse to no vegetation. This community is dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and kochia (Bassia scoparia). Plains cottonwood trees were observed near the single-family home in the south central portion of the study area. Vegetative cover across these areas generally comprises approximately 0-10% cover. The upland habitats across the study area are dominated by FAC-UPL species with dry, light-colored loam, sandy loam, and clay loam soils. In general, the Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous and Cultivated Cropland vegetation communities across the study area did not meet the criteria for wetland based on lack of at least one required parameter (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology). Refer to Photos 13-16 below for characteristics of upland habitat identified within the study area. 1 Photo 13. View west of the Cultivated Cropland vegetation Photo 14. View southeast at the Upland Grassland and community in the eastern portion of the study area. Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation community. Approximate location of upland data point DP-U1a shown above. Photo 15. View southeast of smooth brome dominating the Photo 16. View southeast the single-family dwelling within the Upland Grassland and Ruderal Herbaceous vegetation Cultivated Cropland vegetation community. community. Scientific Name Common Name WIS* Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem FACU Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama UPL Bromus inermis Smooth brome UPL Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass UPL Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU Conium maculatum Poison hemlock FACW Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed UPL Convo/vulus arvensis Field bindweed UPL Dipsacus fullonum Fuller's teasel FACU Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive FACU ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge UPL Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce FAC Lemna minor Common duckweed OBL Opuntia sp. Prickly pear UPL Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass FACU Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine UPL Polypogon monspeliensis Annual rabbit's-footgrass FACW Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood FAC Potamogeton nodosus Long -leaf pondweed OBL Rumex crispus Curly dock FAC Rumex stenophllus Narrowleaf dock FACW Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow FACW Schoenoplectus pungens Common three -square OBL Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Softstem bulrush OBL Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf cattail OBL Ulmus pumila Siberian elm UPL Verbascum thapsus Great mullein UPL * Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) — Great Plains Regions: OBL = occurs in, aquatic resources > 99% of time FACW - = occurs in aquatic resources 67-99% of time FAC = occurs in aquatic resources 34-66% of time FACU = occurs in aquatic resources 1-33% of time UPL = occurs in uplands > 99% of time WIS Source: Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1- 17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X http://www.phytoneuron.net/ 3 Ash, ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report This report has been prepared by: ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. Matthew Boyer, Ecologist (303) 679-4820 x106 Matthew@erccolorado.net Reviewed and approved by: David J. Blauch, V.P., Senior Ecologist (PWS # 2130) 4 EgC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report 5.0 REFERENCES Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States, US Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. (Map only; scale 1:7,5000,000.) Corner, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Environmental Laboratory. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87- 1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. ITIS. Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2017. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Available online at: www.itis.gov/. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X NatureServe 2017. NatureServe Explorer Central Database. Ecological Association Comprehensive Report. Available online at: http://explorer.natureserve.org. March. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter, Subject: Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL 05-05. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. http://www.usace.a rmy. m it/Porta is/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rg105-05. pdf. . 2010. USACE. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available online at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatorv/reg supp/gp supp.pdf . 2016. Great Plains Regional Wetland Plant List, version 1. Available online at: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2016/Regions/pdf/reg_GP_2016 vl.pdf US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Available online at: http://websoilsurvev.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed March 2017. 5 ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report APPENDIX A 6 Aquatic / Resource Continues 5672 Juhls Drive Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 679-4820 DPG Property Boundary Study Boundary (c 265 acres) Data Point Location & ID Field Flag & ID Approximate Centerline Aquatic Resources with No Defined Surface Connection to Other Waters of the US DPG Delineated AR Habitat Type (Cowardin) PEM C3 PEM - OHWM PEM/PFO L _5 PSS C3 PSS/PEM PSS/PEM - OHWM J13 • J15 Aquatic Resource Continues Table 1. mammary of Aquatic Resources Delineated within the Survey Area Acres Linear Feet Direct Surface Inside Study of Stream Connection to Other Boundary Only Channel WOUS (Y/N) .61 40.42007/-104.61912 -104.6103 Aquatic Resource Riverine 40.42.356/-104.61038 DPG SITE AQUATIC RESOURCE DELINEATON MAP ERC DPG Site Aquatic Resource Delineation Report APPENDIX B WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J 1-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP -Ala Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.420763° N Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a low point in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-A1a. Long: -104.610111° W NW classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (NB) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 45 1. Distichlis spicata UPL species x 5 = 2. Typha angustifolia 20 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. Schoenoplectus pungens 5 N OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting _data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7 8. 9 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 70 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -Ala Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-20 10YR 2/2 70 7.5YR 5/6 30 C M Gm* Silly Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) J Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ✓ Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or_ problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) / Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) 1 Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Water Table Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Let: 40.420962° N Long: -104.609671° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP -Alb Section, Township, Range: 1, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% NWI classification: N/A Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No 1 Remarks: Upland data point in a basin in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP -A1 a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—)_ 0 (A) 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACU FACU species x 4 = 10 1 Pascopyrum smithii UPL species x 5= 2. Rosa woodsii 10 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Poa pratensis 5 N FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Chorispora tenella 5 N UPL 5 Cirsium arvense 5 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 35 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Great Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP -Alb Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-6 10YR 3/3 100 Silty loam 6-20 10YR 4/4 100 Gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) u Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H). _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vedic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Inigation Region Lat: 40.421033° N Long: -104.613042° W City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-B1a Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes / No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a low point in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-B1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 45 1 Distichlis spicata UPL species x 5 = 2. Typha angustifolia 20 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Rumex stenophyllus 5 N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis 15 N FACW 5. Phalaris arundinacea 10 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 95 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. real Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP -B1 a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-8 10YR 2/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M Gravelly SiIVClay loam 8-16 10YR 4/3 100 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ✓ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) L. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes / No Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Berm City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP -431b Section, Township, Range: 1, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.420962° N Long: -104.609671° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. NWI classification: N/A Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ,./ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland data point in a basin in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP-B1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACU FACU species x 4 = 15 1. Bromus inermis UPL species x 5 = 2. Bouteloua gracilis 10 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Bassia scoparia 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 35 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 65% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Great Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP -B1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features • the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (mast) % Type' Loc2 0-10 10YR 3/3 100 Silty loam 10-20 10YR 3/3 100 Gravelly silty loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) — Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) — Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that aDDly) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Pattems (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) — FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) — Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.421961° N Long: -104.608633° W Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-D1a Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): none NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a low point in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. The soils had a significant amount of clay, which appeared to assist in retaining water near the surface as compared with the surrounding uplands. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-C1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total `)/0 Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 15 1 Poa palustris UPL species x 5 = 2. Typha angustifolia 35 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Rumex stenophyllus 10 N FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Cardaria draba 10 N UPL 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 70 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No e, Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers real Mains — version . SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-20 10YR 2/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 40 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) u Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) / Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) I/ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) — 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. Sampling Point: DP-D1a HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required). _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) I Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Berm Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-C1b Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Lot: 40.421687° N Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Long: -104.608571° W NWI classification: PABF Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No d Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Upland data point in a basin in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP-C1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC,—)_ 0 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4 Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACU FACU species x 4 = 15 1 Cirsium arvense UPL species x 5 = 2. Descurainia pinnata 10 N FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Cardaria draba 10 N UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Pascopyrum smithii 30 Y FACU 5 Cynoglossum officinale 10 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 75 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 Silty Clay loam 12-20 10YR 3/3 90 7.5YR 4/4 10 C M Silty loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. Sampling Point: DP-C1b HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No i Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.419360° N Long: -104.612900° W City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-D1a Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Na (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a low point in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-D1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) 1 Salix fragilis 20 Y FAC 2. ___ Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 x 10 ft ) 20 = Total Cover Y FACW Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (NB) 40 1 Salix exigua 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: _ 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 40 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 5 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5= 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 5 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. reat Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP-D1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 0-8 10YR 3/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Clay loam 8-20 10YR 4/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 C M 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) u Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) I Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) L. Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) / Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) / Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) — Water -Stained Leaves (B9) — Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Water Table Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Berm City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-Dib Section, Township, Range: 1, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.419160° N Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Long: -104.612377° W NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Upland data point in an area recently disturbed by a pipeline installation in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP-D1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 1 (A) 1 Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera 20 Y FAC 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (NB) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACU FACU species x 4 = 25 1 Poa pratensis UPL species x 5 = 2. Cynoglossum officinale 15 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Bromus inermis 10 N UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation — 2 - Dominance Test is >50% — 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting —data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 50 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Great Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe' Loc2 0-10 10YR 2/2 100 Silty loam 10-20 10YR 3/3 100 Silty loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. Sampling Point: DP-D1b HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) — Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and lnigation Region Lat: 40.420271° N Long: -104.614370° W City/County: Weld State: CO Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 Sampling Point: DP-E1a NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 0-2% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a depression in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-E1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 3( 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 4 (A) 1 Salix fragilis 20 Y FAC 2 - Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4 - Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10x 10 ft ) 20 = Total Cover 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 35 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5 = 2. Rumex stenophyllus 15 Y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Schoenoplectus pungens 15 Y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7 8' 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 65 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. reat Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoel Loc2 0-10 10YR 2/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Clay loam 10-20 10YR 2/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) u Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) — Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) / Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. Sampling Point: DP-E1a HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) / Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Consulting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Berm City/County: Weld Section, Township, Range: State: CO 1, 5N, 65W Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 Sampling Point: DP-E1b Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.420528° N Long: -104.614429° W Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes Not Remarks: Upland data point on a man-made berm in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP-E1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1 Ulmus pumila 15 Y UPL 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4: Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 15 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (NB) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover N FACW FACU species x 4 = 10 1. Rumex stenophyllus UPL species x 5 = 2. Chorispora tenella 10 N UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Bromus inermis 45 Y UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 65 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -E1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-20 10YR3/3 100 gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) - Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Pattems (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): remnant oxbow Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.420668° N Long: -104.614916° W City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP -Flo Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. NW classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a depression in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-F1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 3 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 x 10 ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 25 1 Salix exigua 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 25 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 15 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5 = 2. Rumex stenophyllus 5 N FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Schoenoplectus pungens 40 Y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 60 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers real Plains — version L. SOIL Sampling Point: DP -Fla Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2 0-8 10YR 4/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Silty Clay loam 8-20 10YR 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M Silty Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) / Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) L. Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) ✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) / Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Water Table Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: .l-2 Consulting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Berm Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.420671° N Long: -104.614942° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Weld State: CO Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 Sampling Point: DP-F1b Slope (%): 1-3% NW classification: N/A Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No � Hydnc Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes Not Remarks: Upland data point on a man-made berm in the central portion of the survey area that appears to have been flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP-F1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A), 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4 - Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover N FACW FACU species x 4 = 5 1 Rumex stenophyllus UPL species x 5= 2. Descurainia pinnata 10 N UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Pascopyrum smithii 20 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Bassia scoparia 10 N FACU 5 Cirsium arvense 15 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 60 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. reat Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP- F1b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) Y. Type' Loc2 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 silty clay loam 8-20 10YR 3/3 100 sandy day loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) — Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): remnant oxbow Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.421274° N City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-G1a Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Long: -104.618560° W NW classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes i No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes / No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a cattail wetland that appears to be a remnant oxbow in the eastern portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-G1a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 3 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. - 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (NB)' Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 x 10 ft ) 0 = Total Cover 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 25 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5 = 2. Typha angustifolia 40 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 10 N OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Persicaria lapathifolia 10 N OBL 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. T 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 85 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers reat Plains — Version 1. SOIL Sampling Point: DP-G1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvr e' Loc2 0-6 10YR 4/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Silty Clay loam 6-20 10YR 4/1 65 7.5YR 4/6 35 C M Silty Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) L. Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) / Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) / Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Water Table Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: .1-2 Consulting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-G1b Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.421227° N Long: -104.618552° W Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 1 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 NIA/I classification: PABF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No ✓ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Upland data point in the western portion of the survey area between Aquatic Resource G and Aquatic Resource H. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP-G1a VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. - Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (NB) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover N FAC FACU species x 4 = 10 1 Lactuca serriola UPL species x 5 = 2. Descurainia pinnata 5 N UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Pascopyrum smithii 50 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Euphorbia esula 10 N UPL 5 Cirsium arvense 20 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 95 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No I % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers real Plains — version z.0 SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe' Loc2 0-20 10YR 2/2 100 silty clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) - 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. Sampling Point: DP-G1b HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.425259° N Long: -104.607413° W Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 1 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-H1a Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes d No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes i No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a wetland fringe along the Cache la Poudre River. This data point is paired with upland data point DP-U4a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 3 (A) 1. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 x 10 ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW 20 1 Salix exigua 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5x 5ft ) 20 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 40 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5 = 2. Rumex crispus 20 Y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Xanthium strumarium 10 N OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7 83 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 70 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. reat Plains — Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP-H1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-15 10YR 3/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Silty Clay loam 8-20 10YR 3/3 100 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) / Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Depth (inches): Remarks: - Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. - HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) 1 Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) ✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No 1 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Water Table Present? Yes - No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.422079° N Long: -104.618145° W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-H1b Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-3% NWI classification: N/A Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a wetland fringe along the Cache la Poudre River. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A)_ 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4 Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 x 10 ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 20 1 Salix exigua 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3_ OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5x 5ft ) 20 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 65 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 65 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. Great Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP-H1b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-16 10YR 3/2 60 7.5YR 4/6 40 C M Silty Clay loam 16-20 10YR 3/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Silty Clay Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (83) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) L. FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP -11a Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.419096° N Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are cimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Hydric Soil Present? Yes I No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Wetland data point in a wetland in the South Platte River riparian corridor. Long: -104.603967° W NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) 1 Salix fragilis 10 Y FAC 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4 Sadina/Shrub Stratum {Plot size: 10 x 10 ft ) 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y FACW FACU species x 4 = 80 1 Phalarus arundinacea UPL species x 5 = 2. Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 80 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20% = Total Cover Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -11a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-6 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam 6-20 10YR 3/2 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Sandy Clay Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ✓ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): Remarks: Does meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) L. Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) L. Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ✓ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes. No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Consulting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace City/County: Weld State: CO Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.420671° N Long: -104.614942° W Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are cimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 1 No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No d Is the Sampled Area a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1within Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No d Remarks: Upland data point in the eastern portion of the survey area between Aquatic Resource I and the South Platte River corridor. This data point is paired with wetland data point DP -11a. Sampling Date: 4/19/2019 Sampling Point: DP -11 b NWI classification: N/A Slope (%): 1-3% Datum: NAD83 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 x 30 ft ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4: SaDlino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply-bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover N FAC FACU species x 4 = 5 1. Lactuca serriola UPL species x 5 = 2. Descurainia pinnate 15 Y UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Chenopodium album 5 N FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 Euphorbia esula 10 N UPL 5. Cardaria draba 15 Y UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation — 2 - Dominance Test is >50% — 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Bromus inermis 20 Y UPL 7 Rumex crispus 5 N FAC 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 75 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP -I1 b Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 silty loam 4-12 10YR 3/3 100 gravelly loam 12-20 10YR 4/3 100 sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I Water Table Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.423616° N Long: -104.606083° W Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1 No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Weld Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 State: CO Sampling Point: DP-U1a Section, Township, Range: 1, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% NWI classification: N/A Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No d Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland data point in a basin that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 2 (A) 1. 2 - _ Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4 Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species 25 x 1 = 25 4 FACW species 15 x 2 = 30 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y UPL FACU species 15 x 4 = 60 10 1 Descurainia pinnata UPL species 15 x 5 = 75 2. Typha angustifolia (stubble) 25 Y OBL Column Totals: 70 (A) 190 (B) 3 Poa pratensis 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.71 4. Oenothera villosa 5 N FACU 5 Rumex stenophyllus 5 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation — 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 — — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Juncus articus ssp. littoralis 10 Y FACW 7. Erodium cicutarium 5 N UPL 8. 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 70 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30% = Total Cover Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. reat Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP-U1a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-6 10YR 3/2 100 Silty clay loam 6-20 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vedic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): • Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): basin City/County: Weld State: CO Section, Township, Range: 1, 5N, 65W Sampling Date: 4/17/2019 Sampling Point: DP-U2a Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.422345° N Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are cimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Upland data point in a basin in the central northern portion of the survey area that appears to have been previously flooded seasonally. Long: -104.611991° W NWI classification: N/A Datum: NAD83 VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 2 (A) 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4 Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 1. 2. Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 15 x 1= 15 4. FACW species 15 x 2 = 30 5 FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover N UPL FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 5 1 Descurainia pinnata UPL species 5 x 5= 25 2. Typha angustifolia (stubble) 15 Y OBL Column Totals: 60 (A) 165 (B) 3 Poa pratensis 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.75 4 Phalaris arundinacea 10 Y FACW 5. Rumex stenophyllus 5 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation — 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' — — 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Pascopyrum smithii 10 Y FACU 7 Xanthium sturmarium 5 N FAC 8. 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 60 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40% = Total Cover Remarks: Meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-U2a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-6 10YR 4/2 100 Gravelly S.Iyclay loam 6-20 10YR 4/2 100 Gravelly loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) — 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) _ Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): berm Subregion (LRR): G Westem Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.419710° N Long: -104.611832° W City/County: Weld State: CO Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 Sampling Point: DP-U3a Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2% Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are cimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. NWI classification: N/A Datum: NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: Upland data point in disturbed area situated between Aquatic Resources A and Aquatic Resource D in the north central portion of the survey area. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (NB) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover Y UPL FACU species x 4 = 25 1 Descurainia pinnata UPL species x 5 = 2. Cardaria draba 20 Y UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Chorispora tenella 15 Y UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. 7 8. 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 60 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers rear Plains — version t. SOIL Sampling Point: DP-U3a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loci 0-20 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M Gravelly Say clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) — Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) _ Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Great Plains Region Project/Site: DPG Site Applicant/Owner: J-2 Contracting Co. Investigator(s): M. Boyer, K. Medash Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): berm Subregion (LRR): G Western Great Plains Range and Irrigation Region Lat: 40.425097° N Long: -104.607404° W Datum: NAD83 NW classification: N/A City/County: Weld State: CO Section, Township, Range: 12, 5N, 65W Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Sampling Date: 4/18/2019 Sampling Point: DP-U4a Slope (%): 0-2% Soil Map Unit Name: Ellicott -Ellicott sandy -skeletal complex 0-3% Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No naturally problematic? No No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No _✓ Remarks: Upland data point in disturbed area situated south of Aquatic Resource H in the northeast portion of the survey area. Paired with wetland data point DP -H1 a. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Indicator Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC—): 0 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4 Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. 2 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 x 5ft ) 0 = Total Cover N UPL FACU species x 4 = 10 1. Descurainia pinnata UPL species x 5 = 2. Lactuca serriola 10 N UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 3 Euphorbia esula 15 Y UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = q Carduus nutans 5 N FACU 5 Pascopyrum smithii 20 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: — 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation — 2 - Dominance Test is >50% — 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 6. Bromus inermis 15 Y FAC 7. 8. 9• 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 75 = Total Cover 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No I % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25% = Total Cover Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. reat Plains — Version 2. US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: DP-U4a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features the absence of indicators.) Texture Remarks (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 0-4 10YR 4/4 100 sandy loam 4-20 10YR 4/4 100 gravelly sand loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) _ High Plains Depressions (F16) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for hydric soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1 Water Table Present? Yes No / Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Does not meet the criteria for wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains — Version 2.0 EXHIBIT K Climate Climate information was available for the Greeley, CO (053553) weather station from the Western Regional Climate Center. The climate data collected from 1967 through 2019 indicates the average total annual precipitation at the site to be approximately 14.20 inches per year. Monthly average temperature and precipitation data for the 40 -year period of record are provided in the following table: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature (F) 41.9 47.1 56.7 64.9 73.9 84.4 90.3 88.0 79.9 66.8 51.5 41.9 65.6 Average Min. Temperature (F) 15.5 19.8 27.0 34.8 44.1 52.9 58.5 56.3 47.0 35.5 24.7 16.5 36.0 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 0.46 0.37 1.02 1.79 2.43 1.86 1.51 1.36 1.08 1.06 0.75 0.51 14.20 JET Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT L Reclamation Cost A phased and cumulative bonding approach is proposed for the DPG Mining site operation. The financial warranty required for each phase is the warranty required to completely reclaim that phase. The financial warranty required for each phase of mining includes a cost component for the slurry wall liner required to close the current mined area should project be stopped and the operator defaulted. Because the slurry wall liner required to close the current mined area for each phase of mining is replaced with a new slurry wall liner required to close the current mined area component as the next phase of mining occurs, the financial warranty required for this component for the previous phase is credited back in each phase's required financial warranty calculation. This accurately calculates the additional financial warranty required for any given phase of mining and for the current limit of disturbance as well as accounting for the financial warranty that has already been posted to ensure that the Division has sufficient cumulative financial warranty to complete the reclamation. Direct costs related to the construction of the reclamation components that have been included in the financial warranty calculations include: Scarifying disturbed ground surfaces, re -applying topsoil over disturbed areas, revegetating disturbed areas, dewatering the full pit, slurry wall liner construction, and contractor mobilization. The slurry wall liner construction costs have been broken down further to include costs for different depths to bedrock as provided from the DRMS on previous 112 applications. Overhead, profit, and project management costs were then calculated and added to the direct construction costs to arrive at the required financial warranty for each phase. As each new phase is started, the financial warranty for that phase will be posted with the Division. When a phase has been reclaimed, inspected, and accepted by the Division, the associated financial warranty for that phase can then be reduced/released to 20% of the financial warranty required for that phase. Please see the attached calculations for details of the costs and quantities used to determine the financial warranty required for each phase of mining. Thefollowing table summarizes the financial warranty required for each phase, and the cumulative financial warranty that will be provided during any given phase. J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Reclamation Cost Summary Phase Additional Financial Warranty Required Cumulative Financial Warranty 1 $2,176,698 $2,176,698 2 $1,754,896 $3,931,594 3 $3,003,497 $6,935,091 4 $4,372,357 $11,307,448 5 $1,312,219 $12,619,667 J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application JET Coizsultirig, Iris. Reclamation Bond Quantities and Costs © 2019 AT Camultlna. hie. J-2 Contracting Co. DPG Pit 5/712019 18114 DPG Pit Rae Bond Calcs Summary of Unit Costs Direct costs Re -applying topsoil 12" thick Revegetating disturbed area Dewatering full pit Phase 1 Slurry Wall Cost (0-50 R@$347 -51-70f @ $441 - 71-9517@$1315) Phase 2 Slurry Wall Cost (0-50 5 @ $341- 51-70 5 @ $441- 71-95 5 @ $13/11) Phase 3 Slurry Wall Cost (0-50 ft @ $3/5 - 51-70 ft @ $447 - 71-95 ft @ $13/5) Phase 4 Slurry Wall Cost (0-50f@$347- 51-70f@$441- 71-955@$1341) Phase 5 Slurry Wall Cost (0-50f@$341- 51-705@$441-71-95 f@$13/5) Scarifying Ground Mobilization Overhead and Profit Costs Liability insurance Performance bond Profit Project Management Engineering and bidding Management and administration Phase 1 - 24.6 acres (Mining Limits) Reclamation Operation Slurry Wall for Phase 1 Scarifying - Topsoil/OB Stockpile, Access Road, Plant Site Areas, Scale, Settling Ponds Topsoil Placement - Topsoil/OB Stockpile, Access Road, Plant Site Areas, Scale, Settling Ponds Revegetate - Topsoil/OB Stockpile, Access Road, Plant Site Areas, Scale, Settling Ponds Scarifying - Disturbed Areas - Phase 1 Cell after Backfilling and out to Permit Boundary Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - Phase 1 Cell after Backfilling out to Permit Boundary Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - Phase 1 Cell after Backfilling out to Permit Boundary Dewatering of Pit for Phase 1 Mobilization $1,800.00 / acre $1,000.00 / acre $400.00 / million gallons $360.00 / linear foot $425.00 / linear foot $360.00 / linear foot $542.00 / linear foot $190.00 / linear foot $200 /acre $2,500 lump sum 1.55% of direct cost 1.05% of direct cost 10.00% of direct cost Total Overhead Cost 12.60% of direct cost 4.25% of direct cost 5.00% of direct cost Total Additional Cost 9.25% of direct cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 4,259 If $ 360.00 $ 1,533,240 20.75 ac $ 200 $ 4,150 20.75 ac $ 1,800 $ 37,350 20.75 ac $ 1,000 $ 20,750 4.62 ac $ 200 $ 924 4.62 ac $ 1,800 $ 8,316 4.62 ac $ 1,000 $ 4,620 394.00 mg $ 400 $ 157,600 1.0 Is $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Total Direct Cost $ 1,769,450 Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) $ 222,951 Contract Cost $ 1,992,401 Project Management (9.25%) $ 184,297 Total Required Financial Warranty For Phase 1 $ 2,176,698 Phase 2. 20.1 acres (Mining Limits) Reclamation Operation Slurry Wall for Phase 2 Scarifying - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Dewatering of Pit for Phase 2 Mobilization Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 3,021 3.78 3.78 3.78 322.00 1.0 If ac ac ac mg Is $ 425.00 $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 1,000 $ 400 $ 2,500 $ 1,283,925 $ 756 $ 6,804 $ 3,780 $ 128,800 $ 2,500 Total Direct Cost $ 1,426,565 Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) $ 179,747 Contract Cost $ 1,606,312 Project Management (9.25%) $ 148,584 Additional Financial Warranty Required For Phases 2 Cummulative Financial Warranty Required For Phase 1-2 Phase 3 • 56.2 acres (Mining Limits) Reclamation Operation Slurry Wall for Phase 3 Scarifying - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Dewatering of Pit for Phase 3 Mobilization $ 1,754,896 $ 3,931,594 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 5,546 19.50 19.50 19.50 960.00 1.0 If ac ac ac mg Is $ 360.00 $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 1,000 $ 400 $ 2,500 1,996,560 3,900 35,100 19,500 384,000 2,500 2,441,560 Total Direct Cost Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) $ 307,637 Contract Cost $ 2,749,197 Project Management (9.25%) $ 254,301 Additional Financial Warranty Required For Phase 3 Cummulative Financial Warranty Required For Phase 1-3 $ 3,003,497 $ 6,935,091 Phase 4. 44.1 acres (Mining Limits) Reclamation Operation Slurry Wall for Phase 4 Scarifying - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Dewatering of Pit for Phase 4 Mobilization Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 5,917 7.20 7.20 7.20 808.00 1.0 If ac ac ac mg $ 400 Is $ 2,500 Total Direct Cost $ 3,554,314 $ 542.00 $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 1,000 Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) $ 3,207,014 $ 1,440 $ 12,960 $ 7,200 $ 323,200 $ 2,500 447,844 Contract Cost $ 4,002,158 Project Management (9.25%) $ 370,200 Additional Financial Warranty Required For Phase 4 Cummulative Financial Warranty Required For Phase 1-4 Phase 5.45.4 acres (Mining Limits) Reclamation Operation Slurry Wall for Phase 5 Scarifying - Disturbed Areas Cell to Water Surface Topsoil Placement - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Revegetate - Disturbed Areas - Cell to Water Surface Dewatering of Pit for Phase 5 Mobilization $ 4,372,357 $11,307,448 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 4,039 7.60 7.60 7.60 685.00 1.0 If ac ac ac mg Is $ 190.00 $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 1,000 $ 400 $ 2,500 767,410 1,520 13,680 7,600 274,000 2,500 Total Direct Cost Overhead and Profit Cost (12.60%) $ 1,066,710 134,405 Contract Cost 1,201,115 Project Management (9.25%) $ 111,103 Additional Financial Warranty Required For Phase 5 Cummulative Financial Warranty Required For Phase 1-5 $ 1,312,219 $ 12,619,667 EXHIBIT M Other Permits and Licenses J-2 Contracting Company will apply for and obtain the following permits and/or notices prior to commencement of any mining or mining -related activities that would require the permit or notice to be obtained at the DPG Mining site: Colorado Office of the State Engineer • Well Permit (Prior to exposing groundwater) • Substitute Water Supply Plan (Prior to exposing groundwater) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment • Air Pollution Emission Notice • Colorado Discharge Permit System Weld County • Use By Special Review Permit J&T Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT N Source of Legal Right to Enter See attached IrUT Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Source of Legal Right to Enter By Owner of Affected Land and Substance to be Mined: DPG Farms, LLC 3300 S Parker Road, STE 300 Aurora CO 80014-3521 Mr. Peter Hays Environmental Protection Specialist Department of Natural Resources Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 Re: DPG Pit DRMS Permit Application - Construction Material Regular (112) Operation Reclamation Permit Mr. Hays: Please accept this letter as evidence that the applicant/miner, J-2 Contracting Company, has permission to enter and initiate a mining operation on the affected lands. By signing this letter, we warrant that we have the legal and sole ownership of the affected lands and substance to be mined, and authority to offer this permission. Thank you, Mr. David White DPG Farms, LLC State of V —A -O jss County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this A ;1 a,ul� , by Dckt/ict WI, p f' o day of and (?on -t c+Pt rJ 'Notary Public My Commission Expires fir,5er l /7 ROBERT CHARLES CHAPIN $ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO N0TARY1D 20154037223 MYCOWSSION SOVES SOMMER 1d 2019 EXHIBIT 0 Owner of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owner of Substance to be Mined DPG Farms, LLC 3300 S Parker Road, STE 300 Aurora CO 80014-3521 Deeds are attached. ■ MT Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application 4(79 11181 III 111110Unlit 11111111011111111111111 • 2808479 11121/2000 03:40P JA 8ula isulcamoto 1 of 1 R 5.00 D 0.00 Weld County CO CERTIFICATE OF CONVERSION THIS CERTIFICATE OF CONVERSION, dated as of the 1st day of October, 2000, pursuant to Section 7-90-201(5) of the Colorado Corporations and Associations Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), is presented to the officer of the Secretary of State of Colorado to convert D.P.G. BIRD FARM, INC. into a limited liability company. FIRST: The converting entity is: D.F.G. BIRD FARM, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), whose address is 3300 S. Parker Road, Suite 300, Aurora, CO 80014-3521. SECOND: The resulting entity is: DPG FARMS LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Colorado (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), whose address is 3300 S. Parker Road, Suite 300, Aurora, CO 80014-3521. THIRD: The Plan of Conversion and this Certificate of Conversion were deemed advisable, authorized and approved by the board of directors of the Corporation. At a meeting of the shareholders of the Corporation, duly noticed and called in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation and in accordance with the Colorado Business Corporation Act, the number of votes cast by the shareholders of the Corporation for the conversion was seven (7) in favor of the conversion, none (0) against the conversion, and two (2) shareholders did not attend the meeting. The number of shareholders required to approve the conversion pursuant to Section 7-90-201 of the Act was five (5). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the proper officers of the Corporation have caused this Certificate of Conversion to be signed on behalf of the Corporation as of the 1s1 day of October, 2000. D.P.G. BIRD FARM, INC. 0:lClients\ D0570VCertif•Canvcrsion4.doc ndall H. Holm, President (Rats. Ctrtn•.;.ri-: r^y n1DNt A i fi4r;'t4t j; C:ot4.!SFti ,...Acy Of 20001213548 C $ 110.00 SECRETARY OF STATE 11-01-2000 15:20:52 AE2113691 S 1245 RAC 02193641 10/03/89 16:51 $15.00 1/003 F 1500 MARY ANN FSUERSTEIN CLSPR & RECORDER WELD CO, CO Do4 oz, 10 0 O N TOGETHER with all of the landowners interest in all oil and gas and mineral leases, now in affect or of record. . 01 0-4 rvi mTOGETHER with all and singular the bereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, the zs reversion(s), remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all othe estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the ▪ •+r+ said party of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the 14 8 above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. al e TO HAVE AND TO SOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said Grantee, its heirs, Lc .4 and assigns forever. And the said Grantor, for itself, its successors Nw and assigns, does covenant, great, bargain and agree to and with the said Grantee,- its heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing m and delivery of these presents are well seized of the premises above i conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and have good right, -full power ,ro and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in a manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from o ae+ all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assess- c meats, and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature soever; except taxes m for 1989 and easements and restrictions of record and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said Grantee, its heirs and assigns, against all and every person(e) lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this day of October, 1989, between YAELICH a CO., a Colorado Corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado of the County of Arapahoe, and State of Colorado (Grantor), and D.P.C. BIRD PANE, INC., a Colorado Corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, (Grantee): WITNBSSETB, that the said Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of -- TEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS (US$10.00) --to the said Grantor in hand paid by the said Grantee the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these present does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said Grantee, its heirs and assigns forever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situated, lying and being in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, to wit: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor have hereunto set its hand and seal the day and year first above written. 1 ? \+ -•=4 •-S+ YARLiCH & CO.. a Colorado Corporation /Secrete y wendol n R. Yaklicb • T. STA OF COLORADO z SS. COUNTY OF ARAPABOE by President Robert J. Ya Itch The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of October, 1989, by ROBERT J. YARLIC s President and GWENDOLYN R. YARLICS as Secretary of YARLICE 1 CO , Co rade Corporation. Witness my hand and ofoal. my c•mmi -sion expir Warranty Deed 952 �' B 1245 REC 02193641 10/03/89 16:51 $15.00 2/003 . • • F 1S01 MARY ANN PEDERSTEIN CLERK a RECORDER WELD CO, CO EXHIBIT "A" Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Weld. Described as: Portions of Sections 1, 2, 11 and 12, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Section 12, Township S North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., and considering the North line of said Section 12 as bearing N87'45'19'W, with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence S00'22'26'W, along the East line of said Section 12, 1630.62 feet to a point 1000.00 feet North of the 81/4 corner of said Section 12; thence S71'23,24'W, 2844.50 feet to the center of said Section 12; thence N88'02'09'W, along the East-West centerline of said Section 12, 2687.66 feet to the WI/4 corner of said Section 12; thence 589'21'05'W, along the South line of the 1131/4 of said Section 11, 753.81 feet to the Southeast corner of a tract of land conveyed by Deed recorded January 16, 1976 in Book 757 no Reception No. 1479098, then along the boundary of said tract of land the following 9 courses and distances: thence N13'19'320E, 386.46 feet; xX thence N07'42'14'W, 169.00 feet; thence N59'09'04'W, 129.05 feet; thence $61'53'19'W, 217.11 feet; thence N22'35'49'W, 22.27 feet; thence $63'42'26'W, 259.09 feet; thence S83'50'07'W, 20.83 feet; thence S02'15'46"E, 194.13 feet; thence S28'24'48'W, 247.12 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of County Road; thence along said Westerly right-of-way line by the following course and distance: Along the arc of a curve to the left whose radius is 79.45 feet and whose long chord bears 840659'06'W, for distance of 8.71 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of the South line of the NE1/4 of said Section 11 and the West right-of-way line of County Road; thence S89'21'5094 a distance of 1278.89 feet, more or less, to the center of said section 11; thence 589'36'17•W, along the South line of the NW1/4 of said Section 11, 2645.08 feet to the W1/4 corner of said Section ii; thence N00'25'31'E, along the West line of the NW1/4 of said Section ii, 1373.95 feet to the Northwest corner of the S1/2 of the NWI/4 of said Section 11, 1373.95 feet, to the Northwest corner of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of said Section 11; thence S88'53'39'E, 1321.83 feet along the North line of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of said Section 11; thence N00'23'48'E, 641.34 feet to the centerline of the Cache La Poudre River; B 1245 REC 02193641 10/03/89 16:51 $15.00 3/003 F 1502 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECORDER WELD CO, CO . EXHIBIT "A" Continued thence along said centerline of the Cache La Poudre River by the following 2 courses and distances: N53'08,43'E, 157.56 feet; N08'18'09'E, 106.32 feet to the intersection of the centerline of Cache La Poudre River and the centerline of Sand Creek; thence along said centerline of Sand Creek by the following 3 courses and distances: NO2'46'48'E, 198.60 feet; N12'31'19'E, 171.90 feet; N08'19'47'E, 149.00 feet to the intersection of the centerline of Sand Creek and the North line of said Section 11; thence N89'57,58"E, along said North line of Section 11, 2437.24 feet to the Northwest corner of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 of said Section 11; thence N01'14'13'E, along the North -South centerline of the SE1/4 of said Section 2 to the North right-of-way line of the Ogilvy Ditch; thence along the North right-of-way line of the Ogilvy Ditch to the intersection of said North right-of-way line and the East line of Section 2; thence N01'15'22'E, along said East line of Section 2 to a point which is SO1'15'22'W, a distance of 162.50 feet from the intersection of the South right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 263.and the East line of said Section 2; R. thence 888'18'20*E, a distance of 2679.46 feet to a point -on the East line of the SW1/4 of Section 1; thence NO0'48'52'E,.a distance of 228.84 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of the Ogilvy Ditch; thence along said Ogilvy Ditch by the following 9 courses and distances: S60'27'546E, 214.30 feet; S43'04'04'E, 152.37 feet; 581'54'06'E, 63.15 feet; N63'58'36'E, 127.25 feet; N34'58,390E, 382.62 feet; N77'55'066E, 188.75 feet; N79'34,326E, 402.37 feet; N77'44'23"E, 135.50 feet; N50.17'42'E, 103.06 feet; thence $06'19'15"E, leaving said North right-of-way iine, 702.00 feet; thence S86'41'43"E, 1118.00 feet to a point on the East line of said Section 1; thence SO0'07'59% along the East line of said Section 1, 1217.20 feet to the Southeast corner of said Section i, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH all right, title and interest of the Grantors in and too all water and water rights, ditches and ditch rights, wells, sumps and reservoir rights, including but not limited to the following: Fifteen (15) shares of the capital stock in The Delta Irrigation Company Three (3) shares of the capital stock ma The Ogilvy Irrigation and Land Co. EXHIBIT P Municipalities within Two Miles City of Greeley Development Review 1100 10th Street — 4th Floor Greeley, Colorado 80631 Town of Kersey P.O. Box 657 332 3rd Street Kersey, CO 80644 C. JUT Consulting, Inc. C . J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application EXHIBIT Q Proof of Mailing Notices to County Commissioners and Soil Conservation District See attached. JoT Consulting, Inc. J-2 Contracting Company DPG Pit DRMS 112 Permit Application Hello