The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20193294.tiffUSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINSERVICES * 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE * GREELEY, CO 80631 www.,werdgov.corn * 970-400-6100 * FAX 970-304-6498 FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: AMOUNT $ APPLICATION RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED: CASE # ASSIGNED: PLANNER ASSIGNED: Parcel Number*: Address of site: 4 6 9 _ 2 8 _ _ o 0. 0 2 8 1245 County Road 19 Legal Description: Lot B of REC 18-o083 located in SE 1/4 of Section: 28 CA 12 digit number on Tax ID. information, obtainable at vvvvw.weldclOV.com) . Township: 1 N Range: 67 VV Zone District: A Acreage: Floedprain: eolegic.al Hazard: YI Airport Overlay: YON FEE OWNE(S) OF THE PROPERTY: Name: Crestone Peak Resource Holdings LLC Company: Crestone Peak Resources Phone #: (720) 410-8500 Email: Street Address: 1801 California Street, Suite 2500 City/State/Zip Code: Denver,, CO 80202 Name: Company: Phone 4. Street Address: Email: City/State/Zip Code: Name: Company: Phone it: Street Address: City/State/Zip Cede. Email: APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: (See below: Authorization must accompany all app/icat/oos signed by .A ut horlaed Agents) Name: Meghan Campbell Company; Crestone Peak Resources Phone #: (720) 410-8487 Email: meghan.eampbell@crestanepr.com Street Address: 1801 California Street, Suite 2500 City/State/ZipCode: Denver, CO 80202 PROPOSED USE: Site is currently being used as a storage yard and Crestone would like to continue this use. See included questionnaire for details. I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with or contained withinthe application are true and correct to the best of my (our)knowledge. Signatures of all fee owners of property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all fee owners must be included with the application. If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating that the signatory has to legal a thoriity to sign for the corporation. J Y J Y 6 11u b Signature: Owner ori Au Meghan M Campbell Pt Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date Print Name Print Name Rev 4 016 I, (VVe), +0 nu-- �l 'ea DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH I AND ENVIRONNMENT 1555 NORTH 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, Co 80631 AUTHORIZATION FORM give permission to I "Y _ CAP)Iktill (Authorized Agent — please print) to apply for any Planning, Building or Septic permits on our behalf, for the property located at (address or parcel number) below: 1245 County Road 19: parcel no, 1469-28-4-00-028 Legal Description: Lot B of RE 18-OOB3, located in SE 1/4 of Section 28, Township el R Range 67 W Subdivision Name: Property Owners Intonation: Address: 1801 California Street, Ste 2500,, Denver, CO 80202 Lot Block Phone: (720-410-8500 E�rnalf: Authorized Agent Contact Information: Address: 1801 California Street, Ste 2500, Denver, CO 8.0202 Phone: (720) 410-8487 E -Mail: meghan.campbell orestonepr,00rn Correspondence to be sent to: Owner i Authorized Agent, Both...IX I by Mail X Email Additional i nfo: y,. Owner Signature: tile-Grif Date: Stiffen) a. .Sednee 7 Owner Signature: f"41 -et . o.4/4- A iC Date: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) QUESTIONNAIRE Crestone Peak Resources Answer the following questions on a separate sheet. If a question does not pertain to your use, please respond with "not applicable". For assistance with some of these questions see this website: http ://www. co .weld . co . u sfDepartments/ Pl a n n i n gZon i ng/ La n d U s eAp pl i cation sAs s i sta n ce/Ap pl i cationAs s i sta n ce. h tm I Planning Questions: Planner on Call 970-400-6100 1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property. The site for the Narco Wattenberg Yard is currently being used as a storage yard and Crestone would like to continue to use it as such. The yard will be used for occupying and using office space, outside storage of oil field equipment, staging area, use of warehouse as well as a field measurement testing and calibration building. Previously this location was permitted as a Natural Gas Processing Plant. The site has been sold a couple times and been under prior ownership. Crestone has owned the location since 2016, using it as a storage yard the whole time and plans to correct the permitted use. Currently the site is permitted under of 2nd Corrected Amended USR-589 which Crestone plans to fully vacate the existing USR and obtain a new permit. 2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 22 of the Comprehensive Plan. Weld County has an abundance of mineral resources which are vital to the surrounding local economies as well as the State of Colorado's economy. The proposed Use by Special Review (USR) Permit is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Ch 22 of the Weld County Code as in Article V, Sec 22-5-100 OG. Policy 2.5 in that Crestone is utilizing an already existing site and converting it for use of a storage yard with no additional disturbance in that we are minimizing the impact to the area. Also, with Goal 7. 2.A, Policy 7.2 states "Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development and should attempt to be compatible with the region.' Crestone is the current owner of the site. The current site location is already disturbed and had been approved under a previous USR under a different purpose; USR-589 for a Natural Gas Processing Plant. The subject area, in the (A) Agricultural Zone District has shown that it can support this type of industrial development. Crestone is currently using this site for storage as noted above and there is no need to continue with existing USR for a Processing Plant. Also as noted, Crestone plans to fully vacate the existing USR, which is why this application is being submitted. The USR application is also consistent with CH 22 as in Goal 8, Policy 8.1, 8.3 and 8.4. Sanitary sewage and water systems are already available at this location. Crestone maintains its access roads so that it is able to support fire apparatus and shall have a surface that allows for all weather driving capabilities. Crestone has a current Stormwater Management Plan for the site. 3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 23 (Zoning) and the zone district in which it is located. (Falls in A AG) The proposed Use by Special Review Permit is consistent with Weld County Code Ch 23 in that oil and gas support facilities are permitted with the USR. This site is a support facility and Crestone is in the process to correct the existing USR on the site by submitting a new and accurate USR for the oil and gas support facilities. 4. Describe what type of land uses surround the site. Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The surrounding properties on all four sides of this parcel are AG A,. There are many existing sites related to oil and gas development in the area and throughout the county. A natural gas line goes through this area as well there is a natural gas control station to the east. High Sierra has a water well directly adjacent to the site. Discovery Midstream has applied for a USR for a compressor station adjacent as well. Public Services of Colorado located to the east has a natural gas control station as well as the aforementioned gas line. No capability issues currently with the site. A letter was sent by Crestone to notify those residents within 500' of the parcel in July about the proposed project. To date, none of the surrounding property owners have contacted Crestone with questions/concerns. Please see enclosed list of property owners along with a copy of the letter. Crestone does not feel that there will be major noise concerns associated with this site. Noise impacts from the facility will be minimized by enclosing equipment within buildings and providing acoustical insulation. While the exact noise levels generated by the site are not known at this point; however, any noise generated by this facility will not exceed the 50 dB(A) when measured from any of the neighboring residential properties. 5. What are the hours and days of operation? (e.g. Monday thru Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Hours of operation are Monday — Friday, 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Every access point is a card access only entry. There is nighttime lighting at the entrances and at the main office. Only certain people can access the yard at any time. Card access is required to enter the yard during day and night. If access is needed after 6 pm, the Crestone representative in charge of the activity would meet on location to provide access. 6. List the number of full time and/or part time employees proposed to work at this site. There is one full time employee that works at the site. Occasionally contractors stop by. 7. If shift work is proposed include the number of employees per shift. No shift work; just the one employee. 8. List the number of people who will use this site. Include contractors, truck drivers, customers, volunteers, etc. Between one to five people could potentially use the site in a day; this includes the one employee and up to four contractors whom come and go throughout each day. In addition, up to 35 truck drivers could stop by the site each day. Please see Engineering Questions section for more info on trucking and traffic. 9. If this is a dairy, livestock confinement operation, kennel, etc., list the number and type ofanimals. N/A 10. Describe the type of lot surface and the square footage of each type. (e.g. asphalt, gravel, landscaping, dirt, grass, buildings) One Lot, Lot B. All surface is dirt with road base and gravel mixed in on the designated roadways for traffic. The building structures have concrete floors. 11. How many parking spaces are proposed? How many handicapped (ADA) parking spaces are proposed? No new parking spaces are proposed at this site nor are any ADA parking spaces proposed. Currently there is a designated parking area located in front of the office building near the entrance off of CR 4. There are 23 existing spaces. 12. Explain the existing and proposed landscaping for the site. There is no existing landscaping at the site and none currently proposed. 13. Describe the type of fence proposed for the site (e.g. 6 foot chain link with earth tone slats) The existing fence is a 6' galvanized, chain link. 14. Describe the proposed screening for all parking and outdoor storage areas. If the site is located in a floodplain outdoor storage is restricted. There is no screening for parking or outdoor storage areas at this time. 15. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activityoccurs. Crestone does not plan to terminate the Use By Special Review Permit any time soon but when that does take place Crestone will follow these practices: Reclamation and Stabilization Methods In areas where soils have been exposed and further work is not expected for long durations, temporary and permanent stabilization BM Ps will be utilized. Surface roughening or mulch will be applied as a temporary stabilization measure, when appropriate, until conditions are suitable for seeding. Where straw mulch is applied, it will be crimped into the soil. Seeding will serve as a permanent stabilization measure and will be done when seasonal or weather conditions are most favorable according to Weld County, engineered grading plans, and reclamation contractor, when applicable. Whenever possible, seeding will be timed to take advantage of available soil moisture, such as early spring or late fall. The need for fertilizers will be determined in conjunction with consultation associated with reclamation plan objectives, and the permanent landscaping design if any. If fertilization is necessary, the rates of application will be based on site -specific requirements of the soil, and consultation with a reclamation contractor. Final Stabilization and Long-term Stormwater Management Final stabilized means that all ground surface disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and all disturbed areas have been either built on, paved, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established with an individual plant density of at least 70 percent of pre -disturbance levels, and the vegetation cover is capable of providing erosion control equivalent to pre-existing conditions, or equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction methods have been employed. Reclamation practices will be implemented, where applicable, to achieve final stabilization in all areas which are not part of the permanent unpaved working surface. Working surfaces will be permanently stabilized with stabilized gravel road base, rock armor, crushed asphalt, or paving, throughout the life of the production facility. Post -construction stormwater quality BM Ps will be maintained in accordance with COGCC 1002.f(3) rule requirements. 16. Who will provide fire protection to the site? The yard currently falls in the jurisdiction of the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District. Crestone has a Fire and Emergency Response Plan detailing procedures and this document can submitted upon request. The Plan is updated annually. 17. List all proposed on -site and off -site improvements associated with the use (e.g. landscaping, fencing, buildings, drainage, turn lanes, etc.) and a timeline of when you will have each one of the improvements completed. At this time no improvements are planned to the site. As this is an existing site, improvements shown on the site plan are built (existing) and no additions need to be made at this time. Crestone is bringing the site into compliance with the new USR submittal. Engineering questions: 970-400-3750 1. Describe how many roundtripsiday are expected for each vehicle type: Passenger Cars/Pickups, Tandem Trucks, Semi-Truck/Trailer/RV (Roundtrip = 1 trip in and 1 trip out of site) We average around 175 trucks per week. That would be 35 per day roundtrips. Majority of the trucks that come through are contractor trucks which consist of hydro trucks and semis, averaging (3) three times per day. Dump trucks are around 30 per day. 2. Describe the expected travel routes for site traffic. From Highway 85, Weld County Road 4 through the south gate or Weld County Road 19 through north gate. Describe the travel distribution along the routes (e.g. 50%. of traffic will come from the north, 20%. from the south, 30% from the east, etc.) 75% comes in the main South entrance and 25% comes in the North entrance. 4. Describe the time of day that you expect the highest traffic volumes from above. Highest traffic volume occurs between 7 am and 9 am. Describe where the access to the site is planned. Access to the site is existing and no additional access is proposed at this time. There are 2 different existing access points to the parcel site as mentioned previously, one point enters from CR 19 and one point enters from CR4. Drainage Design: Detention pond summarized in a drainage report is required unless the project falls under an exception to stormwater detention requirements per code section 23-12-30 F.1. A. Does your site qualify for an exception to stormwater detention? If so, describe in a drainage narrative the following: No this site does not qualify for an exception; please see enclosed Drainage Report. 1. Which exception is being applied for and include supporting documentation. 2. Where the water originates if it flows onto the property from an offsite source 3. Where it flows to as it leaves the property 4. The direction of flow across the property 5. If there have been previous drainage problems with the property B. Does your site require a stormwater detention pond? Yes. If so, the following applies: 1. A drainage report summarizing the detention pond design with construction drawings and maintenance plan shall be completed by a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer and adhere to the drainage related sections of the Weld County Code. Please see enclosed Drainage Report. 2. The drainage report must include a certification of compliance stamped and signed by the PE which can be found on the engineering website. 3. A general drainage report guidance checklist is available on the engineering website. More complete checklists are available upon request. USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) QUESTIONNAIRE Environmental Health questions: 970-304-6415 x2702 1. What is the drinking water source on the property? If utilizing a drinking water well include either the well permit or well permit application that was submitted to the State -Division of Water Resources. If utilizing a public water tap include a letter from the Water District, a tap or meter number, or a copy of the water bill. No drinking water is on location. Crestone has bottled water to provide for employees as there is only one employee onsite. As noted in number 8, under Planning questions, contractors come and go from site. Crestone does have a water well, permit no. 018674-F, and pump with a poly line that supplies water to the restrooms located in the office building. Please see number 2. 2. What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing septic system provide the septic permit number. If there is no septic permit due to the age of the existing septic system, apply for a septic permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior to submitting this application. If a new septic system will be installed, please state "a new septic system is proposed". Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of Public Health and Environment's portable toilet policy. There is both a septic system in the main office building as well as multiple portable johns spread throughout the yard. Septic permit no. G19890266. Water well, permit no. 018674-F provides water for the restrooms as noted in number 1, above. 3. If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored? Oilfield materials and equipment are being stored and will continue to be stored on this site. 4. Describe where and how storage and/or stockpile of wastes, chemicals, and/or petroleum will occur on this site Waste storage: 2 20 -30 yard recycling dumpsters for steel 1 20 yard dumpster for poly pipe 1 recycling dumpster for copper 1 20 yard recycling dumpster for stainless steel 1 20 yard recycling dumpster for aluminum 1 5 yard recycling dumpster for cardboard 1 30 yard dumpster for construction debris 1 mini dumpster for contaminated soil and rags - Dumpsters are emptied on average 2 times per month, Waste Management handles dumpsters including the contaminated waste. Recycle items goes to Rocky Mountain Recycling. Chemical storage in Conex buildings: 2, 275 gallon totes of OCC-2-odor control 4, 55 gallon barrels of Oder Control Plus 1, 55 gallon barrel of Baker Hughes 10 odor control 1, 55 gallon drum of Pigging gel, which is stored in the red barn 5. If there will be fuel storage on site indicate the gallons and the secondary containment. State the number of tanks and gallons per tank. Petroleum/Other storage located inside steel berm containment that has a liner 100 bbl tank used for motor oil 700 gallon diesel tank 500 gallon methanol tank 50 gallon unleaded tank Up to 30, 400 bbl tanks for oil base drilling fluid (proposed) - Crestone has SDS on all the chemicals on file. These can be provided upon request by the County or Fire District. 6. If there will be washing of vehicles or equipment on site indicate how the wash water will be contained. There is a designated wash bay in which equipment is washed in. It has a containment which includes a drain and the liquid drains to a 250 bbl containment tank that is hauled out and emptied when needed. The wash bay is handled by Ranger and disposed of at NGL. 7. If there will be floor drains indicate how the fluids will be contained. There will be no additional floor drains beyond what is in the wash bay area; please see response to number 6. Indicate if there will be any air emissions. (e.g. painting, oil storage, etc.) There are no permanent emission sources. Storage of the oil base drilling fluid may have emissions, but they are unknown at this time. Crestone will make sure to be in compliance with CDPHE regulations. 9. Provide a design and operations plan if applicable. (e.g. composting, landfills, etc.) N/A There will be no composting on the site nor is it a landfill. 10. Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable. (e.g. dairies, feedlots, etc.) N/A There are no planned dairies or feedlots at this site. 11. Additional information may be requested depending on type of land use requested. Building questions: 970-400-6100► 1. List the type, size (square footage), and number of existing and proposed structures. Show and label all existing and proposed structures on the USR drawing. Label the use of the building and the square footage. All of the structures included on this USR are existing and include: • Office and shop — Total sq footage is 3,416' with 1,856 being used for office space and 1,560' being used for shop; office space used for computer access, shop used for storing equipment (Permitted) • Pump house — 408'; this is tied into the water well (Permitted) • Red barn — 5000'; used for storage (Permitted) • Weld shop — 1,500'; used to do welding (Permitted) • Automation — 2,192'; used for storage of automation equipment (Permitted) • Connex — (25 "permanent') that are used to store valves, fittings and electrical items. (Need to be permitted). 2. Explain how the existing structures will be used for this USR? The existing structures will be used in the same manner that they are currently being used for as noted in number 1, above. 3. List the proposed use(s) of each structure. There are no new uses proposed, please see number 1 above. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard Weld County, Colorado January 2019 Prepared for: Crestone Peak Resources 1801 California Street, Suite 2500 Denver, CO 80202 Prepared by: ROCIHA, LLC TRAFFIC AND TRANSP9RTAT 0\ CONSULTAN �j t jtu r, #�gi,+■ odatqP00 0 R ' ►�e„s C� \C K C%.7 Nie fit ' et I:" Argr t4s6 210 it li 01/16/2019 reTh 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 210 Westminster, Colorado 80031 (303) 458-9798 Project Engineer: Stephen Simon, Eli Engineer in Responsible Charge: Fred Lantz, PE 18-12935 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 Table of Contents Page I, Introduction Project Overview... 1 Study Area Boundaries 1 Site Description 1 Existing and Committed Surface Transportation Network 4 II. Existing Traffic Conditions ., Existing Traffic Analysis Results 7 III. Future Traffic Conditions Without Proposed Development 8 Background Traffic Analysis Results - Year 2039 .10 IV. Proposed Project Traffic 11 Trip Generation ...11 Adjustments to Trip Generation Rates 11 Trip Distribution 12 Trip Assignment 12 V. Future Traffic Conditions With Proposed Developments 14 VI. Project Impacts 17 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service 17 Total Traffic Analysis Results 18 VII. Conclusion 19 SA4 ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page I Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 List of Figures Page Figure 1 - Location 2 Figure 2 Site Plan 3 Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 Background Traffic Volumes - Year 2039 9 Figure 5 Distribution and Site Generated Assignment 13 Figure 6 - Total Traffic Volumes - Year 2019 15 Figure 7 Total Traffic Volumes - Year 2039 16 List of Tables Page Table 1 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Existing Traffic 7 Table 2 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Background Traffic - Year 2039 10 Table 3 - Trip Generation Estimate 11 Table 4 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Total Traffic - Year 2019 17 Table 5 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Total Traffic - Year 2039 18 Appendices APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C TRAFFIC COUNT DATA LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS CAPACITY WORKSHEETS SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page ii Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 I. Introduction Project Overview This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements associated with the development entitled Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard. This development consists of an existing storage yard facility on an approximately 40 -acre parcel, with storage area for oil & gas drilling operation resources. The development is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 in Weld County, Colorado. Study Area Boundaries The study area to be examined in this analysis encompasses the intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4, and existing site accesses. Figure 1 illustrates location of the site and study intersections. Site Description The existing development is understood to consist of a storage yard facility on an approximately 40 - acre parcel for the storage of oil and gas well site equipment and components. The site location is surrounded by mix of agricultural, light industrial, and open space land uses. Access to the development is existing and provided at the following locations: One full -movement access onto Weld County Road 4 (referred to as Access A), and one full -movement access onto Weld County Road 19 (referred to as Access B). For purposes of this study, it is understood that the development will undergo minor alteration to better conform to County standards along with updates to the land use description. However, no major construction or building additions are anticipated. Therefore, analysis periods are limited to the existing conditions of Year 2019, with long-term operational analysis for Year 2039. A conceptual site plan, as prepared by Ascent Geomatics Solutions, is shown on Figure 2. This plan is provided for illustrative purposes. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 1 4- 4114 NARCO WATT TENBERG STORAGE YARD Traffic Impact Study SM ROCHA, LLC Traffic and Transportation Consultants O Not to Scale Figure 1 SITE LOCATION January 2019 Page 2 tau I • k1/4a-M\I 1/2 \\\ .aat ion a e*.". 0-27 -4 ://e � hith I c *‘:\\ \‘sks, -:;exte deSet[ taede ,mot • Searersar I I I hi S C5E O$ VxIME) D39 59. 56. S3V 2640.V2B- NARCO WATTENBERG STORAGE YARD ;_:_ AI, Traffic Impact Study SM ROCHA, LLC Traffic and Transportation Consultants 7 I" I .arvala l.• l� ,'4,, lekra t-. \\s„,ffJl q f! I 9;1/4 Or. lisre-° 1� r w fir — __L I p 4 ma. 1r, 1 I 1 Weld County Road 4 • ' C ■E. Y 0 -; - • gi se4Y :7•:7•Eas zq 512.7_ t.! ,..5' i.I+t•. •tet.,.i 11*Pt!!4'4 1 1� EAI a lama- i nits— )p 01 .7 Y I Wf-t Iri \ MCI Access B Ili I 2 I 487;39:1;.2171er tHI1 IS SI • Not to Scale I a) 0 C 0 • 1±),J a E. Figure 2 SITE PLAN January 2019 Page 3 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 Existing and Committed Surface Transportation Network Within the study area, Weld County Road 19 is the primary roadway that will accommodate traffic to and from the proposed development. The secondary roadway includes Weld County Road 4. A brief description of both roadways is provided below: Weld County Road 19 is a north -south, paved, rural roadway having two through lanes (one lane in each direction) with exclusive turn lanes at the intersection within the study area. Weld County Road 19 does not provide a posted speed limit; however, based on County's Design Standards1, Weld County Road 19 is assumed to have a speed limit of 55 MPH. Weld County Road 4 is an east -west, unpaved, rural roadway having two through lanes (one lane in each direction) with exclusive turn lanes at the intersection within the study area. Weld County Road 4 does not provide a posted speed limit; however, based on County's Design Standards, Weld County Road 4 is assumed to have a speed limit of 55 MPH. The study intersection is stop -controlled. A► stop -controlled intersection is defined as a roadway intersection where vehicle rights -of -way are controlled by one or more "STOP" signs. No regional or specific improvements for the above described roadways are known to be planned or committed at this time. The study area roadways appear to be built to their ultimate cross -sections. 'Weld County Engineering & Construction Criteria, Weld County, April 2012. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 4 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 II. Existing Traffic Conditions Morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hour traffic counts were collected at the intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4. Average daily (24 -hour) traffic volumes were collected on Weld County Road 19 and Weld County Road 4. These counts are shown on Figure 3. Traffic count data is included for reference in Appendix A. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 5 N\ Weld County Road 4 J T cC Co 1) :EtC) Access B • (1,245) co rO *lap TIT 4-0 14 4-6 / 6 0'0 6 16 —4 1 11--► 1 I3—+ t t t c\Iet- -� Q Not to Scale O 7 H. LEGEND Study Intersection Volumes Study Intersection Lane Geometry Development Site c. 44AMARCO WATTENBERG STORAGE YARD Traffic Impact Study Ski ROCHA, LLC Traffic and Transportation Consultants (285) Figure 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC Volumes & Intersection Geometry AM / PM Peak Hour (ADT) ; Average Daily Traffic January 2019 Page 6 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 The Unsignalized Intersection Analysis technique, as published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) by the Transportation Research Board and as incorporated into the SYNCHRO computer program, was used to analyze the study intersection for existing traffic conditions. This nationally accepted technique allows for the determination of intersection level of service (LOS) based on the congestion and delay of each traffic movement. Level of service is a method of measurement used by transportation professionals to quantify a driver's perception of travel conditions that include travel time, number of stops, and total amount of stopped delay experienced on a roadway network. The HCM categorizes level of service into a range from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates a level of operation considered unacceptable to most drivers. These levels of service grades with brief descriptions of the operating condition, for unsignalized and signalized intersections, are included for reference in Appendix B and have been used throughout this study. The level of service analyses results for existing conditions are summarized in Table 1. Intersection capacity worksheets developed for this study are provided in Appendix C. Table 1 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Existing Traffic INTERSECTION LANE CROUPS LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Weld County Road 19 / Weld County Eastbound Left, Through and Right Westbound Let Through and Right Northbound Left Through and Right Southbound Left, Through and Right Road 4 (Stop -Controlled) A A A A A A A A Key: Stop -Controlled Intersection: Level of Sery ice Existing Traffic Analysis Results Under existing conditions, operational analysis shows that the unsignalized intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 has turning movement operations at LOS A during both the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 7 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 III. Future Traffic Conditions Without Proposed Development Background traffic is the traffic projected to be on area roadways without consideration of potential development additions or alterations. Background traffic includes traffic generated by development of vacant parcels in the area. To account for projected increases in background traffic for Year 2039, a compounded annual growth rate of approximately two percent was applied to existing traffic volumes. This annual growth rate is consistent with regional growth projections and the level of in -fill development expected within the area. Pursuant to the non -committed area roadway improvements discussed in Section I, Year 2039 background traffic conditions assume no roadway improvements to accommodate regional transportation demands. This assumption provides for a conservative analysis. Projected background traffic volumes and intersection geometry for Year 2039 are shown on Figure 4. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 8 Weld County Road 4 J O) r {p O C O U L_ En U) C Access B Ths 1 1,870) F 4-0/0 +0 /0 444 gt, Not to Scale O 111 LEGEND Study Intersection Volumes Study Intersection Lane Geometry Development Site NARCO WATTENBERG STORAGE YARD ;_:_ AI, Traffic Impact Study Ski ROCHA, LLC Traffic and Transportation Consultants (42 5) Figure 4 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 2039 Volumes & Intersection Geometry AM / PM Peak Hour (ADT) : Average Daily Traffic January 2019 Page 9 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 As with existing traffic conditions, the operation of study intersections was analyzed under background conditions, without the proposed development, using the SYNCHRO computer program. Background traffic level of service analyses results for Year 2039 are listed in Table 2. Definitions of levels of service are given in Appendix B. Intersection capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 2 Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Background Traffic - Year 2039 INTERSECTION LANE GROUPS LEVEL OF SERVICE AID PEAK HOUR PNI PEAK HOUR Weld County Road Eastbound Let Westbound Let Northbound Left, Southbound Leff, 191 Weld Through Through Through Through County and and and and Road 4 (Strop Right Right Right Right -Controlled) A A A A A A A A Key: Stop -Controlled intersection: Level of Service Background Traffic Analysis Results - Year 2039 Year 2039 background traffic analysis indicates that the unsignalized intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 has turning movement operations at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. These intersection operations are similar to existing conditions. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 10 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 IV. Proposed Project Traffic Trip Generation Traffic generation characteristics for the proposed development were provided by Ascent Geomatics Solutions as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in their report entitled Trip Generation,10th Edition, do not provide accurate traffic generation information for a storage yard land use. As such, proposed facility operations were evaluated to estimate average daily trip generation. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from point of origin to point of destination. Peak hour volumes were derived from standard relationships of ADT volumes versus peak hour volumes. Trip generation estimates used in this study are presented in Table 3. Table 3 - Trip Generation Estimate LAND USE SIZE.. TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED 24 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR HOUR ENTER EXIT TOTAL ENTER EXIT TOTAL Storage Yard Facility 10 40 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 2 2 1 4 - Single - Multiple Unit Unit Truck Truck 5 VEH 20 VEH Total: 50 3 1 4 2 3 5 Note: All data and calculations above are subject to being rounded to nearest value. VEH = Vehicles. Single Unit Truck = 10000 to 20,000 lbs. Multiple Unit Truck = ≥ 50,000 lbs. Table 3 illustrates that the development has the potential to generate approximately 50 daily trips with 4 of those occurring during the morning peak hour and 5 during the afternoon peak hour. It should be noted that these volumes are estimated as the highest probable trips generated within a 24 -hour period and during peak hours and represent a worse -case scenario. It is understood that actual traffic volumes will typically be less than those indicated. Adjustments to Trip Generation Rates A development of this type is not likely to attract trips from within area land uses nor pass -by or diverted link trips from the adjacent roadway system, therefore no trip reduction was taken in this analysis. It should also be noted that as the site is currently existing, traffic data collected includes some existing vehicle trips. However, no reduction was considered for existing site generated traffic as the exact amount of current vehicle trips cannot be accurately determined. This is also done in order to provide for a conservative analysis. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 11 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 Trip Distribution The overall directional distribution of site -generated traffic was determined based on the location of the development site within the County, existing area land uses, allowed turning movements, and available roadway network. Overall trip distribution patterns for the development are shown on Figure 5. Trip Assignment Traffic assignment is how generated and distributed vehicle trips are expected to be loaded onto the available roadway network. Applying trip distribution patterns to site -generated traffic provides the overall site -generated trip assignments shown on Figure 5. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 12 --2 / 2 Weld County Road 4 L_ co En U) C O) r {p O CC C U -473 Access B 1 6" a 0 LO or 4-1 44-1 t 4-1 /1 1 /1�` 0 / 1--)' Not to Scale r LEGEND Study Intersection Volumes E .. _� Development Site NARCO WATTENBERG STORAGE YARD Traffic Impact Study to SMROCHA,LLD Traffic and Transportation Consultants 4130%!° Figure 5 SITE DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTION (%) : Overall SITE -GENERATED AM / PM Peak Hour January 2019 Page 13 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 V. Future Traffic Conditions With Proposed Developments Site -generated traffic was added to background traffic projections for Year 2039 to develop total traffic projections. For analysis purposes, pursuant to Section I discussion, it was assumed that any changes to the existing development would be completed within Year 2019. Pursuant to area roadway improvement discussions provided in Section III, Year 2039 total traffic conditions assume no roadway improvements to accommodate regional transportation demands. Roadway improvements associated with site development are expected to be limited to site access and frontage as required by the governing agency. Projected Year 2019 total traffic volumes and intersection geometry are shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows projected total traffic volumes and intersection geometry for Year 2039. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 14 0 NI J # 2/2 4-18118 o/0 16/12 ► Weld County Road 4 co En U) C Access B Wi o (1,265) co eN o l* +-0/4 4-1/1 +-0 /0 717-4 1/2 --► 113-, t t t 444 gt, O Not to Scale O 7 L LEGEND Study Intersection Volumes Study Intersection Lane Geometry Development Site _ Ski anrue i i r t� - SM ROCHA, LLC Traffic and Transportation Consultants NARCO WATTENBERG STORAGE YARD Traffic Impact Study (320) Figure 6 TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2019 Volumes & Intersection Geometry AM / PM Peak Hour (ADT) : Average Daily Traffic January 2019 Page 15 J 2/2 4-27 /27 o/0` 24/13 ► Weld County Road 4 Co En a) C Access B (1,885) CN 10/10-` 2/3-* 215-, t c.r,o CO CO 444 gt, C3 Not to Scale O L. LEGEND Study Intersection Volumes Study Intersection Lane Geometry Development Site _ Ski anrue i i r. t� - SM ROCHA, LLC Traffic and Transportation Consultants NARCO WATTENBERG STORAGE YARD Traffic Impact Study (460) Figure 7 TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2039 Volumes & Intersection Geometry AM / PM Peak Hour (ADT) : Average Daily Traffic January 2019 Page 16 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 VI. Project Impacts The analyses and procedures described in this study were performed in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and are based upon the worst -case conditions that occur during a typical weekday upon build -out of site development and analyzed land uses. Therefore, study intersections are likely to operate with traffic conditions better than those described within this study, which represent the peak hours of weekday operations only. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service As with background traffic, the operations of the study intersections were analyzed under projected total traffic conditions using the SYNCHRO computer program. Total traffic level of service analysis results for Years 2019 and 2039 are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. Definitions of levels of service are given in Appendix B. Intersection capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table 4 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Total Traffic Year 2019 INTERSECTION LANE GROUPS LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Weld County Road 191 Weld County Road Eastbound Left, Through and Right Westbound Left, Through and Right Northbound Left, Through and Right. Southbound Left, Through and Right 4 (Stop -Controlled) A A A A A A A A Weld County Road 41 Access A (Stop Easlbound Left and Through Southbound Left and Right -Controlled) A A A A Weld County Road 191 Access B (Stop Eastbound Left and Right Northbound Left and Through -Controlled) A A A A Key : Stop -Controlled Intersection: Lev el of Sery ice SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 17 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 Table 5 - Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary - Total Traffic - Year 2039 INTERSECTION LANE GROUPS LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Weld County Road 19 / Weld County Eastbound Left, Through and Westbound Let Through and Northbound Left, Through and Southbound Left, Through and Road Right Right Right Right 4 (Stop -Controlled) A B A A A A A A Weld County Road 4 / Access A (Stop Eastbound Left and Through Southbound Left and Right -Controlled) A A A A Weld County Road Eastbound Left Northbound Left 19 / Access B (Stop and Right. and Through -Controlled) A A A A Key: Stop -Controlled Intersection: Level of Sery ice Total Traffic Analysis Results Table 5 illustrates how, by Year 2039 and upon development build -out, the stop -controlled intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 shows LOS B or better operations during the morning peak traffic hour and LOS A operations during the afternoon peak traffic hour. Compared to the background traffic analysis, the traffic generated by the proposed development is not expected to significantly change the operations of the study intersection. The stop -controlled intersection of Weld County Road 4 with Access A is projected to have turning movement operations at LOS A for both the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. The stop -controlled intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Access B is projected to have turning movement operations at LOS A for both the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. These intersection operations are similar to existing and background conditions. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 18 Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard - Traffic Impact Study January 2019 VII. Conclusion This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements associated with the development entitled Narco Wattenberg Storage Yard. This development consists of an existing storage yard facility on an approximately 40 -acre parcel, with storage area for oil & gas drilling operation resources. The development is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 in Weld County, Colorado. The study area to be examined in this analysis encompasses the intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4, and existing site accesses. Analysis was conducted for critical AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour traffic operations for existing traffic conditions, Year 2039 background traffic conditions, and Year 2019 and Year 2039 total traffic conditions. Under existing conditions, operational analysis shows that the unsignalized intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 has turning movement operations at LOS A during both the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. Year 2039 background traffic analysis indicates that the unsignalized intersection of Weld County Road 19 with Weld County Road 4 has turning movement operations at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. These intersection operations are similar to existing conditions. Analysis of future traffic conditions indicates that the addition of site -€generated traffic is expected to create no negative impact to traffic operations for the existing and surrounding roadway system given the assumptions used within this analysis. With all conservative assumptions defined in this analysis, the study intersections are projected to operate at future levels of service comparable to background traffic conditions. Site accesses have long-term operations at LOS A during peak traffic periods and upon project completion. SM ROCHA, LLC - Traffic and Transportation Consultants Page 19 APPENDIX A Traffic Count Data (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles JACR4 11 0.69 WCR 19 (97) 60 0.75 45 (77) WCR 19 al oa —.1 -� C. (16) 4 I I..� lit 1 ' t.0 •--0 UU 0.86 E s r 1 .1'�1 '1 1 r� o (83) 52 0.70 WCR4 42 (72) Location: 1 WCR 19 & WCR 4 AM Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 Peak Hour: 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM Peak 15 -Minutes: 07:30 AM - 07:45 AM 0 0 0.00 Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts Interval Start Time Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk t 0 0 0 WCR4 WCR4 WCR19 WCR19 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 12 0 19 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 8 0 21 104 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 16 0 0 9 0 0 6 3 29 97 3 22 81 0 0 0 0 2 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 3 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 1 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 68 0 0 4 82 11 182 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 1 51 8 110 0 0 0 0 (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location: 1 WCR 19 & WCR 4 PM Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM Peak 15 -Minutes: 04:30 PM - 04:45 PM Peak Hour - All Vehicles 'NCR4 (80) 49 0.88 45 (76) WCR 19 (6) 2 0.46 WCR 19 0 0 o 6 N W 0.83 1 y S 3 lel 1 (86) 51 b (6) E 4m0 r 0 Co c`''+� 0.89 WCR4 36 (65) 4 0.63 1 Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts Interval Start Time Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk t 0 0 0 0 o .► WCR4 WCR4 WCR19 WCR19 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 14 0 18 99 0 0 0 0 0 28 99 0 0 0 0 la4:34PM 0 I 3 AL 9a0�2ab 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 9 1 23 88 0 0 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 0 1 8 0 0 10 0 0 2 1 18 73 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 25 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 11 2 8 0 1 1 4 0 3 61 1 0 1 77 2 172 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 6 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 35 0 0 0 48 1 99 0 0 0 0 r C) 0 co 'E c Cr) Tau E a I- I C rn w C4 H X=' CD A Co X C z V X CU C -c CD A C CU 0 X 122 O C -O V a 0 t Co co (1) Cl.) < C\! CO Cl� u X C NJ L rzi 0 L rch E H CD 0 O 0 C� 0 0 C� CD CO Cc C 0 C C CD CD 0 r C 0 O C 0 C C C C C c\i 0 0 0 CD 0 0 CD C� 0 0 C� 0 0 0 C Q 0 C� 0 C� C� 0 0 C" C� 0 C 0 C C C 0 a 0 C� 0 CD CD 0 0 0 CD C� 0 r CD 0 C 0 C CD 0 • N r 0 C 0 C 0 C C C 0 9 2 66 O C O tho r C� 0 C� 0 C� 0 C� N CN C 0 0 C 0 O r 0 C C r C C 0 C CN C� 0 C� O C� 0 C� r C� N C� 0 r r CO r r r r O 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r 0 r r 0 C C C C C� 0 0 0 0 0 O r r C,' r O r CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 r c\I r r O) co fl co a) r C) CD r C� 0 0 C 0 0000 LCD CD r r r r ('44 CD C, O 0 C C CD C O) 0 0 r C 0 C 0 C C C C� 0 0 C� 0 C� 0 CN CD Cr) 0 0 C� 0 0 CO C� 2 2 2 do di 6 C 0 C O 0 C C C C C 0 CN C� 0 Q C� 0 0 0 C� 0 0 r 0 0 0 r C� 0 0 C� 0 C� 0 C� r C� 0 (N Co r C 0 0 C� r 0 CD C\I 0 CO r O) CD C� C 0 2 0 O CN N CYD Co Co N- > - �--� ct 29 c o_ Co O r C C r 9 C O r CD r C di co O r O C4 r N - r CO C C: C 0 8.91 C• C C� r C C� r 615 O r C� r o o w > C 0- 0 CO CN 0 CO O) C0 C C 0• O CSI Ni N C 6 O N - a) O co 'E O o Cr) Tau E a I- I C cc H X }' CD A X #'' C V X C -c CD A C 0 X O CD V C O 0 C t ( Q) Co co W Q) C�J CO Co o tf} co X N Z L L rzi rch E H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cc O r O C O O O O C O O O O r O O O r C O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C" O O O O C O O O O C O CN C O C O co O O O O O O O O O O N LU r O p O CSD O C O O O O C O O O O CO O O O C N- r O O O O O O O O r O (V co r O O 66 O £'r) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO r O O O O C O O r O C CQ O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO r O O O O O O O O O r CN O r O O O O O O O r O O O O O O O O C O O N O C N - r O C O O O O O O O O Lin O O O CN O O O O O O O O O O O C" O O O CO co O O O O C O O O O C O C CN O O O O O O O O O O •1/4— O O O CO CN O O O O O O O O O O C" O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C O O O O C C" O O O O O O O O O CV C V O O O r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C" O C O O CD O C O O C O r O O O 613 C" co It r O O O a O O O O C" O O N- O Q r 0 C O P O 97J - r O O p O O O Coco C co r O r O CD CO r r P r r O r O O 66 eri o r a (O r a r O r C r r O Cr) O O CD O 2 C Co Co It r O O O CN O O N - Cpl O N O r CD O 0 p O O C r O O O O C) r O cd 5. O CD r 0) O co 'E 0 Cr) ria E a I- I C CC c. o a .(7) co Z C O W z CD H X C A co C z V C -c CD A C CD 0 O } C -O Cv a 0 < C t co co W Q) < cN CO C C (N I) m rch E H O 0 C� C 0 C� O 0 C C CD OO cc CO O 0 C C 0 C O 0 C O O 0 0 r O 0 O r 0 C 0 O O 0 C C O 0 C 0 C 0 C O 0 C C C� 0 O C Q C 0 CD C O CD 0 C C C O O CD 0 O 0 6‘i C6 0 0 0 CN r O 0 0 C 0 CN O 0 C C O 0 Ca C 0) O 0 C� C C 0 O 0 OO CO O 2 0 C) Co O 0 Q C 0 C 0 r O 0 CN CSI C O 0 N- 0 N- 0 0 O C 0 N- 0 C CO Co O 0 66 0 CO CD 0 O C� gst r 0 CD Ict C O O C a CO CO C.0 in to O O O 0 0 0 O O O CN C r N - r C C 0 CO CO CN r r C N r OD Cpl 0 CD 0 Ls?r r r C r CO O 0 C� C C 0 OO 0 CO CO LO O 0 C 0 Co OO C CO O 0 Lin N- C 0 C� C CD 0 N- 0 co "71- 0 cc O 0 C C 0 0 CN co C CD C CO CO C 0 0 C In C 0 C CSI C 0 N- CD 0 C� C CD 0 O 0 O4 C� 0 OO CD 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 CD C C C) 0 C 0 O O 0 O 0 C 0 C C C 0 C NI Co C 0 C� C 0 CD 0 C� C 0 C� {O C r U, C 0 Q r 0 C 0 Q C 0 C C� O CN C 0 Q CD 0 C 0 CN C 0 C CO C 0 erS NI Q P 0 0 C Q C O C� OO C" CO CD Co CO N- CN C O 0 C Co N- 65 e, N C co C r 0 00 O CO r r O r 0 CD L0 N - r r Q O CD 66 C6 o r r C C O co r O O CO 0 r r r 9 r r aco � r r O O4 O 7r C 66 C co o Q.0> 0_ C 0 C 0 O p Q O CO GNI 0 6 0 NI C" c CSI r r O r CD NI 0 r O OD t r co o 4p o_ 0 CO C CO itt CN CN1 C1 C r 0 r CNJ 6 L CCU (O C. c cc Cid co ( c Q.� L CD Q 0_ C J CO CO a) act -O — O .th co z C) CL O co 'E o Cn 73 ct t a I- I C � co (1) CD H X C A co X #'' C 0 2 V X CD CCO -c A C C 0 X 122 C -0 V a 0 X L) C t W CD 0 x L CD X CNJ C1 o tf} Ea I) CO rch E H 0 C 0 C� 0 C 0 CD C C 00 0 Q r C 0 O 0 C 0 O O 0 0 r C 0 r 0 C 0 C 0 C C 0 C C Co C� 0 C 0 C C� CD 0 C C 0 CD 0 C CD 0 C co C CD O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 r C 0 C 0 C CV C C 0 co 0 (N C 0 C C C 0 C C 0 CO CN r C 2 0 N C 0 O 0 C 0 r 0 N- 0 L() C C 0 N- 0 C 0 CN C 0 Co r 0 r C 0 0 CN 4.0 C� 0 Q r co C� 0 r C� N - CD CN C� 0 th 0 C 0 r Ict C 0 C 0 Co CO CSI N- C� 0 C C Co C 0 LC) C� 0 Co CO CN LCD CID N LC) CO LO CD O O Cu O 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 CD C� C3 0 II CD O r 0 0 0 CO CO C 0 (N C 0 C 0 C 0 0 CD 0 0 t t o CA CO COQ N. C.0 CCU CO r r (N CN r r LO O CD C O c o o 22 0 2 coo b r C LC) CO r r r r r r r Co CD C O C� 0 C 0 CD 0 LC) CD CN 0 C 0 (N C 0 C 0 C 0 C C 0 CV N- C 0 C C 0 C 0 C C 0 C N- C Co C 0 0 C� 0 C� 0 C� CD C� 2 2 2 C 0 C 0 C� 0 C 0 C C C 0 CN LC) O 0 Q C3 0 C� 0 O 0 O LC7 O CN LO CD 0 r 0 C r CD 0 r CN C CD C 613 CN C LCD O 4 C 0 0 O 2 C� d CD o r r CN LC) It a C 0 CN C O r r a r r r C3) o CO CO CD O 0) k'1 C s C cu CN O CO O LC) r r o Q err eN 4 4 o r r r a 0 Lj C� Cpl C r CJ r r 9 CO 0 OD r r CD r 0 0 N 0 r C C 0 C3 0 CO LC O 0 r a r 2 C 0 LCD r Co Co r LC) CO CO 0 0 CN a r r r Cr) CO CO CD CN CN C c I- O 0 0_ APPENDIX B Level of Service Definitions The following information can be found in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010: Chapter 18 - Signalized Intersections and Chapter 19 - Two -Way Stop Controlled Intersections. Automobile Level of Service (LOS) for Signalized Intersections Levels of service are defined to represent reasonable ranges in control delay. LOS A Describes operations with a control delay of 10s/veh or less and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. LOS B Describes operations with control delay between 10 and 20 s/veh and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. LOS C Describes operations with control delay between 20 and 35 slveh and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D Describes operations with control delay between 35 and 55 slveh and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E Describes operations with control delay between 55 and 80 slveh and a volume -to -capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. LOS F Describes operations with control delay exceeding 80 siveh or a volume -to -capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to -capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. Level of Service (LOS) for Unsignalized TWSC Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (s/veh) A 0 - 10 B >10-15 C >15-25 D > 25 - 35 E >35-50 F > 50 APPENDIX C Capacity Worksheets HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 1 0 0 0 2 40 0 1 51 8 Future Vol, vehlh 6 1 1 0 0 0 2 40 0 1 51 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 1 1 0 0 0 2 43 0 1 55 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 110 110 60 111 114 43 64 0 0 43 0 0 Stage 1 62 62 48 48 Stage 2 48 48 63 66 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 .. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 868 780 1005 867 776 1027 1538 1566 Stage 1 949 843 965 855 Stage 2 965 855 948 840 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 867 778 1005 864 774 1027 1538 1566 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 867 778 864 774 IMP Stage 1 948 842 964 854 Stage 2 964 854 945 839 MIR Approach DEB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 0.3 0.1 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Murat NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1538 - - 869 - 1566 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.01 - 0.001 WO HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 - 9.2 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 3 0 0 4 1 35 0 0 48 Future Vol, vehlh 6 1 3 0 0 4 1 35 0 0 48 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None w None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 1 3 0 0 4 38 0 0 52 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 95 93 53 95 93 38 53 0 0 38 0 0 Stage 1 53 53 40 40 Stage 2 42 40 55 53 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 888 797 1014 888 797 1034 1553 1572 Stage 1 960 851 975 862 Stage 2 972 862 957 851 - Platoon blocked, % PEI Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 884 796 1014 884 796 1034 1553 1572 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 884 796 884 796 Stage 1 959 851 974 861 Stage 2 967 861 953 851 Approach DEB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 8.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL N BT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1553 - 909 1034 1572 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.012 0.004 WO HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 9 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Background Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 AM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 2 2 0 0 0 3 60 0 2 77 12 Future Vol, vehlh 9 2 2 0 0 0 3 60 0 2 77 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 IIMI 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 2 2 0 0 0 3 65 0 2 84 13 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 167 167 90 169 173 65 97 0 0 65 0 0 Stage 1 95 95 72 72 Stage 2 72 72 97 101 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 tr Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 797 726 968 795 720 999 1496 1537 Stage 1 912 816 938 835 Stage 2 938 835 910 811 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 795 724 968 790 718 999 1496 1537 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 795 724 790 718 Stage 1 910 815 936 833 Stage 2 936 833 905 810 MIR Approach DEB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 0.4 0.2 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1496 r - 805 - 1537 r - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.018 - 0.001 WO HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.6 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Background Traffic Volumes 2: Weld County Road 4 & Access A AM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 I+ 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1 0 0 1 1 Stage 1 1 Stage 2 0 Critical Hdwy 4.12 r 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1622 1022 1084 Stage 1 1022 Stage 2 r r Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1622 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 1022 1084 1022 1022 Approach DEB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn 1 Capacity (veh/h) 1622 r r HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Background Traffic Volumes 3: Weld County Road 19 & Access B AM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 MI IMP 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1 1 1 0 0 Stage 1 1 Stage 2 0 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 sit Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 OM Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1022 1084 1622 Stage 1 1022 Stage 2 MS Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1022 1084 1622 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 1022 Stage 1 1022 Stage 2 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1622 r HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Background Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 PM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 2 5 0 0 6 2 53 0 0 72 2 Future Vol, vehlh 9 2 5 0 0 6 2 53 0 0 72 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None .s - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 PEI 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 2 5 0 0 7 2 58 0 0 78 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 144 141 79 145 142 58 80 0 0 58 0 0 Stage 1 79 79 62 62 Stage 2 65 62 83 80 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 825 750 981 824 749 1008 1518 1546 Stage 1 930 829 RIO 949 843 Stage 2 946 843 - 925 828 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 819 749 981 817 748 1008 1518 1546 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 819 749 817 748 IMP Stage 1 929 829 948 842 Stage 2 939 842 917 828 MIR Approach DEB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 8.6 0.3 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL N BT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1518 - 853 1008 1546 r - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.02 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.3 8.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Background Traffic Volumes 2: Weld County Road 4 & Access A PM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 I+ 0 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1 0 0 1 1 Stage 1 1 Stage 2 0 Critical Hdwy 4.12 r 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1622 1022 1084 Stage 1 1022 Stage 2 r r Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1622 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 1022 1084 1022 1022 Approach DEB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn 1 Capacity (veh/h) 1622 r r HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Background Traffic Volumes 3: Weld County Road 19 & Access B PM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 14 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 IMP 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1 1 1 0 0 Stage 1 1 Stage 2 0 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 sit Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 OM Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1022 1084 1622 Stage 1 1022 Stage 2 MS Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1022 1084 1622 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 1022 Stage 1 1022 Stage 2 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1622 r HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 AM Peak Hour - Year 2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 1 1 0 1 0 2 40 0 1 51 9 Future Vol, vehlh 7 1 1 0 1 0 2 40 0 1 51 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 1 1 0 1 0 2 43 0 1 55 10 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 110 110 60 112 115 43 65 0 0 43 0 0 Stage 1 62 62 48 48 Stage 2 48 48 64 67 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 868 780 1005 866 775 1027 1537 1566 Stage 1 949 843 965 855 Stage 2 965 855 947 839 as la Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 866 778 1005 863 773 1027 1537 1566 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 866 778 863 773 IMP Stage 1 948 842 964 854 Stage 2 963 854 944 838 MIR Approach DEB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 9.7 0.3 0.1 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1537 - - 868 773 1566 . w - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.011 0.001 0.001 SO HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 - 9.2 9.7 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 2: Weld County Road 4 & Access A AM Peak Hour - Year 2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 1+ 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 16 18 2 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 16 18 2 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 17 20 2 1 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 22 0 0 38 21 Stage 1 PPP 21 Stage 2 17 Critical Hdwy 4.12 - r 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 2.218 1593 TIM NMI 5.42 5.42 3.518 3.318 974 1056 1002 Stage 2 - - 1006 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1593 974 1056 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 974 Stage 1 1002 Stage 2 1006 Approach DEB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1593 - - - 974 HCM Lane V/C Ratio WO - 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 3: Weld County Road 19 & Access B AM Peak Hour - Year 2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 s. Traffic V0l, veh/h 0 0 0 69 63 1 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 69 63 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 75 68 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 144 69 70 0 0 Stage 1 69 Stage 2 75 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 IMO Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 849 994 1531 Stage 1 954 Stage 2 948 MS IMP Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 849 994 1531 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 849 Stage 1 954 Stage 2 948 OPP Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvrnt NBL NBT EBLni SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1531 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 PM Peak Hour - Year 2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 2 3 0 1 4 1 35 0 0 48 2 Future Vol, vehlh 7 2 3 0 1 4 1 35 0 0 48 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None None - None Storage Length IMF Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 2 3 0 1 4 1 38 0 0 52 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 96 93 53 96 94 38 54 0 0 38 0 0 Stage 1 53 53 40 40 Stage 2 43 40 56 54 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 w 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 WO 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 887 797 1014 887 796 1034 1551 1572 Stage 1 960 851 975 862 Stage 2 971 862 956 850 ✓ - c. w Platoon blocked, % OM Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 882 796 1014 882 795 1034 1551 1572 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 882 796 882 795 Stage 1 959 851 974 861 Stage 2 965 861 950 850 Approach DEB WB NB BB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 8.7 0.2 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1551 - 895 975 1572 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.015 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 - 9.1 8.7 0 HCM Lane LOS A A MEW A A A O P MEW HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 2: Weld County Road 4 & Access A PM Peak Hour - Year 2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 T+ 2 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 18 2 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 12 18 2 2 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 13 20 2 2 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 22 0 0 34 21 Stage 1 PPP 21 Stage 2 13 Critical Hdwy 4.12 - r 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 2.218 1593 TIM NMI 5.42 5.42 3.518 3.318 979 1056 1002 Stage 2 - - 1010 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1593 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 NMI 979 1056 979 1002 1010 Approach DEB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1593 - - - 979 HCM Lane V/C Ratio WO - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 3: Weld County Road 19 & Access B PM Peak Hour - Year 2019 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 s. Traffic V0l, veh/h 1 0 0 76 54 0 Future Vol, vehlh 1 0 0 76 54 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 0 0 83 59 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 142 59 59 0 0 Stage 1 59 Stage 2 83 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 WO Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 VIM Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 851 1007 1545 Stage 1 964 Stage 2 940 IRS Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 851 1007 1545 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 851 Stage 1 964 Stage 2 940 IMM Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvrnt NBL NBT EBLni SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1545 - 851 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.001 OM HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.2 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 AM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 2 2 0 1 0 3 60 0 2 77 13 Future Vol, vehlh 10 2 2 0 1 0 3 60 0 2 77 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 IIMI 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 2 2 0 1 0 3 65 0 2 84 14 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 167 167 91 169 174 65 98 0 0 65 0 0 Stage 1 95 95 72 72 Stage 2 72 72 97 102 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 MU Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 797 726 967 795 719 999 1495 1537 Stage 1 912 816 938 835 Stage 2 938 835 910 811 r Platoon blocked, % OM Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 794 724 967 790 717 999 1495 1537 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 794 724 790 717 IMP Stage 1 910 815 936 833 Stage 2 935 833 905 810 EMI MIR Approach DEB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 10 0.4 0.2 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnI SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1495 - 803 717 1537 .w - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.019 0.002 0.001 WO HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.6 10 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 2: Weld County Road 4 & Access A AM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 TI 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 24 27 2 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 24 27 2 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 26 29 2 1 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 32 0 MOM 0 56 30 Stage 1 30 Stage 2 OW IP. 26 Critical Hdwy 4.12 - r 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 2.218 1580 IOW 5.42 5.42 3.518 3.318 952 1044 993 Stage 2 997 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 1580 WI UPI 952 1044 952 993 997 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1580 - - - 952 HCM Lane V/C Ratio WO - 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.8 HCM Lane LOS A WIN NV A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 3: Weld County Road 19 & Access B AM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EEL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 s. Traffic V0l, veh/h 0 0 0 103 94 1 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 103 94 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 IMP 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 112 102 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 215 103 103 0 0 Stage 1 103 Stage 2 112 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 IMO Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 773 952 1489 Stage 1 921 MP Stage 2 913 IMF Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 773 952 1489 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 773 Stage 1 921 Stage 2 913 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLni SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1489 r HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 1: Weld County Road 19 & Weld County Road 4 PM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 3 5 0 1 6 2 53 0 0 72 3 Future Vol, vehlh 10 3 5 0 1 6 2 53 0 0 72 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 r 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 3 5 0 1 7 2 58 0 0 78 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 146 142 80 146 144 58 82 0 0 58 0 0 Stage 1 80 80 62 62 Stage 2 66 62 84 82 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 CS - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 823 749 980 823 747 1008 1515 1546 Stage 1 929 828 RIO 949 843 Stage 2 945 843 924 827 Platoon blocked, % OM Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 816 748 980 815 746 1008 1515 1546 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 816 748 815 746 IMP Stage 1 928 828 948 842 Stage 2 937 842 MEI 915 827 EMI MIR Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 8.8 0.3 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL N BT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1515 - 842 960 1546 r .i HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.023 0.008 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 - 9.4 8.8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 2: Weld County Road 4 & Access A PM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 18 27 2 2 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 18 27 2 2 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 20 29 2 2 0 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 32 0 0 50 30 Stage 1 P PP 30 Stage 2 20 Critical Hdwy 4.12 - r 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1580 Stage 1 O MR 5.42 5.42 3.518 3.318 959 1044 993 Stage 2 1003 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1580 959 1044 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 959 Stage 1 993 Stage 2 - - - - 1003 Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 8.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1580 - - - 959 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.8 HCM Lane LOS A - - - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC HCM 2010 TWSC Total Traffic Volumes 3: Weld County Road 19 & Access B PM Peak Hour - Year 2039 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EEL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 114 81 0 Future Vol, vehlh 1 0 0 114 81 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 IMP 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 0 0 124 88 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 212 88 88 0 0 Stage 1 88 Stage 2 124 IMP 41.11 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 r Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 776 970 1508 Stage 1 935 PIM Stage 2 902 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 776 970 1508 1444 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 776 Stage 1 935 Stage 2 902 IMP Approach DEB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EELn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1508 - 776 Awl HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.001 OM HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.6 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 January 2019 Synchro Report SM Rocha, LLC Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Prepared For: CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES Crestone Peak Resources 1801 California Street, Suite 2500 Denver, CO 80202 Prepared By: ASCENT GErnarIcs Mall IONS Ascent Geomatics Solutions 7535 Hilltop Circle Denver, CO 80221 Revised November 9, 2018 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ENGINEERING DESIGNED TO WELD COUNTY CODE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES - NARCO-WATTENBURG LAYDOWN YARD I, Michael Welker, Consultant Engineer for Crestone Peak Resources ("Applicant"), understand and acknowledge that Applicant is seeking to develop the property described in the following Drainage Report. I have designed or reviewed the design ("Design") for the proposed land use set forth in the Application. I hereby certify, on behalf of Applicant that the Design will meet all applicable drainage requirements of the Weld County Code with the exception of variances) described below. This certification is not a guarantee or warranty either expressed or implied. (Engineer's Stamp) Licy * -,, C• . r 1 . ■ o r eqir �+,e �,itis • 39871 • • • • id 03n i II 41 4 • • i NAL Xic sce-ta_g_ra Engineer of Record Signature VARIANCE REQUEST 1) Describe the Weld County Code criteria of which a variance is being requested. 2) Describe why it is not possible to meet the Weld County Code. 3) Describe the proposed alternative with engineering rational which supports the intent of the Weld County Code. Respectfully request to utilize a retention pond rather than a detention pond for stormwater management. The existing site naturally drains to the northwest and several shallow buried oil & gas utilities exist along the western lot boundary. In addition, the neighboring lot is currently being developed causing the project site to be "land locked". This makes installation of a gravity drain pipe not possible and unsafe to install. Because a flow attenuating structure cannot be installed, a retention basin with emergency overflow spillway will be constructed instead. I understand and agree that the intention of the Code is to reduce impacts of development on neighboring downstream properties and the public. I understand if this variance is approved it is not precedent setting and is based on site specific constraints. Planning Director Approval indicated when signed by director or appointee: Planning Director Name Signature Date of Approval CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES ASCENT 6EOMAtiCS SIMMONS contents 1. General Location and Description 1 1.1. Location 1 1.2. Description of the Property 1 2. Calculations 1 2.1 Drainage Philosophy (Variance Request for Retention Basin) 2.2 Hydrology 2.21 Site Soils 2.2.2 Design Storm 2 2.2.3 Overall Post -Development Site Imperviousness 2 2.2.4 Peak Flowrate Calculations 2.3 Retention Pond Design 3 2.3.1 Pond Volume Calculations 3 2.3.2 Pond Stage -Storage for Discharge Calculations 2.3.3 Pond Discharge Design 3 2.4 Hydraulics 4 2.4.1 Ditches 4 2.4.2 culverts 2.5 Grading and Drainage Design 4 3.0 Pond Maintenance Requirements 4 3.1 Routine Maintenance 4 3.1.1 Inspections 4 3.1.2 Sediment and Debris Management 5 3.1.3 Vegetation Management 3.2 Non -Routine Maintenance i r r r r i. dd... r r. i a r r r r s ..... Italia r r 3, 2,11 General .r rr rr rr r. rr rr rr rOda. drr rr r rr rr rOda. drr .r rr rr rr flatlet drr .r rr rw rr rr rs rr rr rr rw rr r rr rs rr rr rr rWOO. drr rr rr rs rr i�r i�r r rr rr r 3.2.2 Facility Repairs 4.0 Conclusion 5 Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page I CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES T1 ASCENT iEM AIICS SULU1IONIS APPENDICES APPENDIX A Hydrologic Soil Group A-1 APPENDIX B NOAA Rainfall Data B-1 APPENDIX C Imperviousness Calculations -1 APPENDIX D Rational Method Calculations D-1 APPENDIX E Retention Basin Volume Calculations E-1 APPENDIX F Retention Pond Stage -Storage Calculations F-1 APPENDIX G Hydraulic Calculations -1 APPENDIX H Construciton Drawings H-1 Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page ii CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES 6E0 MA[ IC5 SDtllBONS ASCENT 1. General Location and Description 1.1. Locati The restone Peak Resources Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard site is in southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. It is physically located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 19 and Weld County Road 4. The proposed site is located just south of the Yoxall Ditch. The proposed development will not impact this ditch. The property is not located in a 100 -year floodplain. The surrounding area development consists of single family residences, barns, well pads, a compressor station facility (in construction), a tank battery and miscellaneous oil and gas related infrastructure. 1.2. Description of the Property The proposed site is currently developed as a gravel laydown and staging yard with miscellaneous oil and gas process facilities on the lot. A portion of the existing development (11.33 acres) drains to an existing retention pond, but the remaining area (22.38 acres) of the parcel does not currently have any stormwater quality or quantity control capacity. No new development is being proposed for this site, other than the construction of a stormwater management pond to provide better control of the stormwater from the existing pad. 2. Calculations 2.1 Drainage Philosophy (variance Request for Retention Basin) The project site drainage must be designed to meet the requirements of Weld County Code Article XII. However, because the existing site is already developed as a gravel laydown and staging yard and is surrounded by existing shallow buried oil and gas utilities, an exemption to the requirement for a storm water detention facility is being requested. The storm runoff from the existing lot will be routed to a retention basin. The following criteria are required to be met by retention ponds in Weld County: • Retention facilities must be designed to contain 1.5 times the runoff volume generated by the 24 -hour, 100-yr storm, plus 1 -foot of freeboard. • The retention facility must include an emergency spillway and must show that a spill will not adversely impact downstream properties or residences. The retention area is in an "all cut" situation, so there is no need for a pond berm to be constructed. Because the entire borrow pit is within the lease boundary, adding a riprap spillway is possible. The existing drainage on the downgradient side of the pond has been improved as part of construction of a neighboring compressor station, so impacts from the unlikely overflow of the basin are minimal. Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page 1 CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiO MArICS SONI1Oh1S ASCENT 2.2 Hydrology The project site drainage must be designed to meet the requirements of Weld County Code — Article XII. The retention basin must be sized appropriately to store the runoff volume from 1.5 times the 100 -year 24 -hour storm. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's (UDFCD) design manual and worksheets have been used to perform drainage calculations for this study. 2.2.1 Site Soils The characteristics of the soils on the site contribute to the amount of storm runoff. Regional soil information is obtained from the National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey. Approximately 30% of the site soils are Weld Loam with slopes of -1% to 3% classified as Hydraulic Soil Group (HSG) B. The remaining 60% of the site soils are Olney Fine Sandy Loam with slopes of 1% to 3% classified as Hydraulic Soil Group (HSG) A. The existing regional soil information obtained from NRCS is used for all runoff calculations in undeveloped areas. See Appendix A for the regional NRCS Web Soil Survey of this site. 2.2.2 Design Storm The design storms considered for this site are the 100 -year 1 -hour event for the design of conveyances and the 100 -year 24 -hour event for the retention pond sizing. The rational method is used for determining peak flows and the FAA method is used for determining the runoff volume for the design storm. Both of these methods require the design storm rainfall depth as an input to perform the calculations. The rainfall depth for each design storm are: 100 -year 1 -hour = 2.61 in 100 -year 24 -hour = 4.69 in Refer to Appendix B for NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Rainfall Data. 2.2.3 Overall Post -Development Site Imperviousness No additional development will occur on the site other than construction of a stormwater management pond. The existing development consists of roads and gravel areas for laydown and staging of oil and gas equipment as well as the retention pond surface. The developed drainage basin only includes flows from the subject property. The developed site contributing to the retention pond has a composite imperviousness of 37.00%. The development will maintain existing flow patterns for the areas that are currently draining into the retention area. See Appendix C for composite imperviousness calculations. 2.2.4 Peak Flowrate Calculations Peak flowrates at design points for the drainage basin are calculated following the UDFCD design manual and worksheets. Inputs for rational method calculations are determined from the construction drawings. Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page 2 CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES 6E0MA[ IC5 SONI IONS ASCENT Refer to Appendix H for construction drawings. The rational method calculations are developed using Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Worksheet "UD-Rational v2.OO.xls". The developed drainage basin has a 100 -year runoff coefficient C100 = 0.40. The resulting peak flow at Design Point 1 is Q100 = 30.11 cfs. The resulting flows at Design Point 1 are the design flows that runoff into the detention pond. The 100 -year developed peak flow will be used as the design flow for the pond overflow weir. (See Appendix D for Rational Method Calculations) 2.3 Retention Pond Design 2.3.1 Pond Volume Calculations The retention pond for this site is required to have capacity to store 1.5 times the runoff volume from the 100-yr 24 -hour storm with 1 -foot of freeboard and an overflow spillway capable of passing the 100 -year peak flow. The required storage volumes for the design storm is computed using the FAA method. This method allows for a simplistic calculation of required storage volume while restricting the pond outflow to represent full retention. These calculations are developed using Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Worksheet "UD-Detention v2.35.xls". The computed storage volume for the 100 -year design storm is 233,091 ft3. The required storage (being 1.5 times the design storm volume) is 349,637 ft3 or 8.02 acre-feet. (See Appendix E for Retention Pond Sizing Calculation) 2.3.2 Pond Stage -Storage for Discharge Calculations Following the determination of the required storage volumes for the retention pond, the pond is designed to allow for the storage of the runoff. The required volume is provided by grading pond with adequate dimensions. (See Appendix H for construction drawings) The stage -storage relationship is determined by calculating incremental contour areas and using the average end area method for computing volume. The key stages for storage volumes are identified to allow for discharge calculations for the pond outlet structure. (See Appendix F for Pond Stage -Storage Information) 2.3.3 Pond Discharge Design The retention pond will discharge the collected stormwater by infiltration through the bottom of the basin. The soils are Type A according to the NRCS Soil Conservation Service Web Soil Survey which have a typical infiltration rate of 1.80 inlhr. With a bottom area of approximately 33,111 ft2, the pond has an equivalent depth of 10.56 ft (126.71 inches) which will drain the full storage volume of 349,637 ft3 in approximately 70.4 hours. Draining in under 72 hours ensures that the retention pond does not infringe upon water rights. Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page 3 CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiO MArICS SONI1Oh1S ASCENT The pond is equipped with an emergency overflow spillway to safely pass storm water flow in excess of the design storm volume. This emergency overflow spillway is designed for the developed 100 -year peak runoff rate of Qico = 30.11 cfs while maintaining a flow depth of less than 6" over the spillway elevation. The overflow weir is designed with side slopes at 4H:1 V cut to the top of the pond embankment. To maintain a flow depth of less than 6", the spillway must have a width of 25.00 ft. The spillway will be set at an elevation of 5013.40 ft to allow for full retention of the design storm. (See Appendix G for hydraulic calculations) 2.4 Hydraulics Due to the type of plant being constructed the site grading will have minimum slopes with the majority of onsite runoff being conveyed by sheet flow and using culverts to pass flow beneath plant roads. Shallow swales will be utilized direct flow to the conveyance facilities. The swales will have shallow slopes and low velocity flows. 2.4.1 Ditches One conveyance ditch is proposed to direct flows into the proposed retention pond. The contributing drainage area to diversion ditch is minimal and the ditch has a flow capacity of 8.01 ft3/s. The remaining flow from the drainage basin will be conveyed to the retention pond by overland sheet flow. (See Appendix G for dich capacity calculations) 2.4.2 Culverts The pond overflow spillway discharges to a 36" storm drain that is currently being installed by the development on the neighboring parcel. If the retention pond overtops, the peak flow rate over the weir will be 301.11 cfs which will then enter the storm drain. The storm drain has adequate capacity to convey the flow from the pond emergency spillway. (See Appendix G for culvert calculations) 2.5 Grading and Drainage Design The results of this drainage study have been incorporated into the project construction drawings. See Appendix H for Grading and Drainage Plans and Details. 3.0 Pond Maintenance Requirements The structural and functional integrity of the retention basin shall be maintained at all times by removing and preventing drainage interference, obstructions, blockages, or other adverse effects into, through, or out of the system. 3.1 Routine Maintenance 3.1.1 Inspections Routine inspections shall be performed a minimum of 2 times annually and after major rainfall events. Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page 4 410 CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES 6E0 MA[ IC5 SDILI ONO ASCENT 3.1.2 Sediment and Debris Management Periodic silt removal shall occur when standing water conditions occur or the pond's storage volume is reduced by more than 10%. Silt shall be removed and the pond/basin returned to original lines and grades shown on the approved engineering plans (See Appendix H). In addition, corrective measures are required any time a basin does not drain completely within 72 hours of cessation of inflow. Accumulated litter, sediment, and debris shall be removed every 6 months or as necessary to maintain proper operation of the basin. Disposal shall be in accordance with federal, state and local regulations. 3.1.3 Vegetation Management Retention facilities shall be mowed monthly between the months of April and October or anytime vegetation exceeds 12 -inches in height. 3.2 Non -Routine Maintenance 3.2.1 General The retention basin shall be kept free of excess trash and debris, poisonous and noxious weeds, contaminants and pollution, rodent holes, standing water harboring insects, and unwanted vegetation growth (i.e. trees). These potential defects shall be repaired or mitigated to the original state within 30 days from the date of observation. 3.2.2 Facility Repairs If upon routine inspection any signs of damage to the emergency spillway or pond embankment are observed, the feature shall be repaired to the original state within 30 days from the date of observation. 4.0 Conclusion This drainage study has been prepared in accordance with the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria and Urban Drainage Criteria Manuals and accepted Professional Engineering Practices. This drainage study has been designed to convey developed flows into a retention basin designed to contain the major design storm. The flows then infiltrate in a manner consistent with the predevelopment drainage patterns. With a properly constructed and maintained pond along with the proposed erosion control measures this development will not adversely impact the existing drainage or existing downstream developments. Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES ASCENT GEUMAYIc5 iULU1IONS APPENDIX A NRCS Web Soil Survey Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page A-1 40° 1' 30" N 40° 0' 48" N 104° 53' 40" W I- F - 50910D 509200 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Narco Wattenbu rg ) 509300 1 •5011 Map may not be valid at this scale. b 0 50910 509200 509300 5O400 509500 509600 509700 509600 509900 Map Scale: 1:6,380 if printed on A porbdit (8.5" x 11") sheet Meters N 0 50 100 200 300 A 509500 509600 c. •- • _ q Q av Ihis ra" M Feet 0 300 600 1200 1800 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WG584 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WG584 509700 509600 509900 104° 5Z 58" W 8 Sas -:' 40° 1' 30" N 40° 0' 48" N USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey "a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/24/2018 Page 1 of 4 a, 5 C3 Eti o L,' >n C O Z 2 0 2 z ia 2 LL z 4 2 MAP LEGEND were mapped at u 0 C 13 Cf3 (15 o C o>1 40 e C 0 CO co 0 Ti I3 - 0in 2 c � E 03 d 0 5 ' ° rid Ss a c- c > C) - C >t0_ M ,.- E maa 4) vzs a E co, c a145 2 "Ies; 't5u) ' z zn ma LI u) • a. co 2 45 W E sc 8 El s 0 C CO 1,12 S ean • a, C C -o do z ■ o 0 to 5 U • Water Features Transportation c ni • • cb Q 03 r to a3 4 r 0 a '>�' C C C al 2 O a, 2 a) 0 - cn _ _ L 01 0 => a �� al Cf) 73 E U cu CO m 2 C L _a a N C� • -tea u) al o c o �-�a,• o co oc' fl a)< Q co Z E ° as co C .c .s _c + Nr CCji ai 4D >• 0 E co� a oc ct -� E 0 0 E c ea= co L. 0oc °2a)o2 o w Go 0 c L3 0 0 0 a c L.._ -L) <to CO 0 ne to173 C L • 1 a C C V 0 0 ❑ 7 • Rating Lines Ito C 0- t_ rcS cc 2 cts nee or area GO al CO CO -t N 13 0_ U i.,_ 0 a o C) C) co o CnN Z ► .0 co 0 02 . O 0 r (U t1, 0 co O . o a co co E -, r to ) 0 O C 0 -155 .. r� tU cir) co tis .c•, C =ETO -CI N I- = CD a< a > 3 ,, (Ti a a> E u) _ _ �, Q D '5 F- c coco to Sep 20, 2015 —Oct images were photographed: CO CU '0 p 0 0a 0 E t r le U Ines were n which the soi (13 a, C C T. < < 0 0 0 7 1 11 i Rating Points OMB a C t�3 CD CO - E �- en EG) 'taw: ;°c a • CO a. ct E _0 0 co -0 Na) Ca no 0 . - < < ae] ® ■ ■ cost y_ E 5 04 04 Cs4 CD eai cO CL a •a cao Co .- 3 L 0. cp sin C: C z Resources z Conservation Service 7)1 d�— Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Narco Wattenburg Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 26 Haverson loam, percent slopes 1 to 3 B 1.0 0.7% 34 Kim loam, slopes 5 to 9 percent A 4.4 2.9% 47 Olney fine 1 to 3 sandy loam, percent slopes B 66.8 43.9% 48 Olney fine 3 to 5 sandy loam, percent slopes B 26.7 17.5% 79 Weld loam, 1 percent slopes t0 3 C 52.1 34.3% 82 Wiley -Colby to 3 complex, percent slopes 1 B 1.1 0.7% Totals for Area of Interest 152.1 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/24/2018 Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Narco Wattenburg Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/24/2018 Page 4 of 4 GEMSTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiOMArICS SONIIONS ASCENT APPENDIX B NOA►A► Rainfall Data Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page B-1 Precipitation Frequency Data Sewer https://hdsc.n s.noaa.gov/hd c/pfd `pf printpage.html' lat=40.0203 T... NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Brighton, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.0203°, Longitude: -104.8881° Elevation: 5013.5 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah !Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, kshani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOM, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)l Duration 5 -min 10 -min Average recurrence interval (years) 1 0.226 (0.174-0.294) 0.331 (0.254-0.430), 0.276 (0.212-0.359) 0.404 (0.310-0.526) 5 0.372 (0.285-0.485) 0.544 (0.417-0.711) 10 0.464 (0.353-0.609) 0.679 (0.517-0.891) 25 0.610 (0.459-0.854). 0.893 (0.671-1.25) 50 0.737 (0.538-1.04) 1.08 (0.788-1.52) 15 -ruin 0.403 (0.310-0.525) 0.493 (0.379-0.642) 0.664 (0.508-0.867) 0.828 (0.631-1.09) 1.09 (0.819-1.53) 1.32 (0.961-1.86) 30 -min 50 -nu n 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 0.555 (0.427-0.722) 0.678 (0.521-0.881) 0.800 (0.621-1.03) 0.864 (0.675-1.10) 1.02 (0.809-1.30) 0.675 (0.518-0.879) 0.825 (0.634-1.08) 0.976 (0.757-1.26) 1.05 (0.823-1.35) 1.23 (0.974-1.56) 12 -hr 1.27 (1.01-1.59) 1.50 (1.20-1.88) L 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 1.53 (1.23-1.88) 10 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60 -day 1.81 (1.46-2.24) 1.74 (1.42-2.13) 2.12 (1.73-2.59) (1.56-2.30) 1.90 (1.87-2.77) 2.29 2.03 (1.67-2.44) 2.41 (1.98-2.91) 2.32 (1.93-2.77) 2.71 (2.25-3.24) 2.58 (2.15-3.06) 2.98 (2.49-3.54) 3.30 (2.79-3.87) i 3.77 (3.18-4.42) 3.88 (3.30-4.51) 4.57 (3.92-5.28) 4.41 3.76-5.14) 5.21 (4.47-6.03) 5.13 (4.42-5.89) 5.89 (5.07-6.77) 0.904 (0.692-1.18) 1.11 (0.848-1.45) 1.31 (1.01-1.69) 1.42 (1.10-1.82) 1.63 (1.28-2.07) 1.93 (1.54-2.42) 1.13 (0.857-1.48) 1.38 (1.05-1.81) 1..64 (1.26-2.12) 1.76 (1.37-2.27) 1.48 1.11-2.07) 1.81 (1.37-2.54) 2.15 (1.64-2.98) 2.31 (1.77-3.18) 2.01 (1.57-2.56) 2.34 (1.85-2.95) 2.33 (1.87-2.88) 2.79 (2.23-3.47) 2.76 (2.24-3.38) 2.93 (2.ao-3.57) 3.30 (2.67-4.06) 348 (2.83-4.26) 2.61 (2.01-3.54) 2.98 (2.32-3.97) 3.49 (2.73-4.55) 1.79 (1.31-2.52) 2.19 (1.60-3.10) 2.60 (1.92-3.63) 2.79 (2.07-3.87) 3.13 (2.35-4.28) 3.53 (2.67-4.75) 4.07 (3.19-5.19) 4.26 (3.37-5.40) 3.05 (2.51-3.69) 3.60 (2.94-4.38) 3.37 (2.79-4.03) 3.93 (3.24-4.73) 4.38 (3.48-5.52) 4.73 (3.78-5.89) 4.07 (3.10-5.37) 4.68 (3.59-6.05) 4.88 (3.77-6.26) 5.01 (3.88-6.39) 5.36 (4.20-6.77) 5.71 (4.49-7.14) 3.66 (3.054.36) 4.54 (3.82-5.33) 5.28 (4.48-6.17) 4.24 (3.52-5.07) 5.18 (4.34-6.11) 6.00 (5.07-7.04) 6.25 (5.34-7.25) 7.09 (6.09-8.18) 7.10 (6.03-8.26) 8.06 (6.88-9.33) 5.06 (4.07-6.25) 100 500 0.877 1.03 (0.620-1.27) (0.701-1.54) 1.28 1.51 (0.907-1.86) (1.03-2.25) 1.26 (0.823-1.92) 1.84 (1.21-2.82) 1.57 1.84 (1.11-2.27) I (1.25-2.74) 2.13 (1.50-3.08) 2.61 (1.85-3.78) 3.10 (2.21-4.43) L3.32 (2.38-471) 3.70 4.34 5.26 (2.69-5.18) (3.03-6.24) (3.53-7.76) 4.14 (3.03-5.70) 4.80 (3.38-6.80) 5/6 (3.91-8.38J 2.25 (1.47-3.44) 2.50 (1.70-3.73) 3.08 (2.09-4.58) 3.65 (2.51-5.36) 3.91 (2.70-5.70) 3.06 (2.00-4.67) 3.75 (2.45-5.74) 4.45 2.94-6.72) 4.76 3.16-7.13) 1.4.5 (0.915-2.22)i 2.112 (1.34-3.25) 2.58 (1.63-3.96) 3.51 (2.22-5.38) 4.31 (2.73-6.62) 5.12 (3.27-7.74) 5.47 (3.52-8.21) 4.69 (3.46-6.34) 5.30 (3.94-7.03) 5.52 (4.13-7.25) (3 5.36 . 80-7.44) (4 5.95 . 25-8.10) (4 6.18 . 44-8.34) 6.02 (3.92-8.91) 6.56 (4.31-9.57) 6.30 (4.31-8.99) 6.84 (4.71-9.57) 7.06 (4.69-10.2) 7.52 (5.05-10.7) 7.07 (4.90-9.81) 7.76 (5.25-10.9) 5.65 (4.24-7.38) 6.01 (4.56-7.77) i 6.37 (4.85-8.16) 6.07 (4.93-7.37) 6.98 (5.70-8.40) 8.23 (6.76-9.81) 6.76 (5.37-8.33) 7.74 (6.19-9.44) 9.08 (7.31-11.0) 6.31 (4.56-8.48) 6.69 (4.88-8.88) 7.05 (5.17-9.28) (5 7.22 (5.04-9.97) 7.62 (5.36-10.4) 7.93 (5.39-11.1) 7.98 .64-10.8)J 8.34 (5.72-11.5) 8.70 (6.00-11.9) 7.45 (5.74-9.40) 8.16 (6.05-10.6) 9.11 (6.51-12.1)1 9.83 (6.86-13.3) 8.48 (6.57-10.6) 9.35 (7.70-11.1) 10.3 (8.32-12.4) 9.92 (7.73-12.3) 11.2 (8.79-13.8) 9.23 (6.88-11.8) 10.7 (8.06-13.6) 12.1 (9.14-15.3) 10.2 (7.35-13.5) 11.8 (8.54-15.4) 13.3 (9.65-17.2) 11.0 (7.70-14.7) 12.6 (8.90-16.7) 14.1 (10.0-18.6) Precipitation frequency (PE) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical 1 of 3 9724/2018, 9:00 AM Precipitation Frequency Data Server https://hdscen s.noaa.gov/hd cipfd `pf printpage.html' lat=40.0203 &... a rc Lit 0- C CL sis t 1 � r4 I CU r. 16 14 12 10 4 2 0 C E 1 16 14 12 10 2 P'DS-based depth -duration -frequency (DDFF) curves Latitude: 40.020Y, Longitude: -104.®881° es E 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 NOAA Atlas 14r volume a Version 2 • • 1 • I • I i I I I I. I. _ 1 Y 1 I . 1 I + I I I • I I I I I I I I e e e 1 t c e e t I e I • I ! • I I I e 1 I I II I I a I - a I — c r 1 —I—— —— 1 I I I I I I I I I • I. • I 1 I • .1 I • . . • • I I I t t I i I I • I • I I I I I I . I S , .._ _Well,. _ . . .: •.i_ . t .. • I I. I I I I 1 1 I I e I I I I I 11 t t a I • I I I ! I I e I I I I I I I t a ! a 1 I I I ! 1 — J _ . _ .. 1 t 4 — .. L ... .I— .. J i a • I i I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I !- I '1 '1 'I - 1 I • • • I gs N Duna to Ctrl �!'e�i >I 1 "J Average recurrence interval (years) 1c re 121 >11 PIN C re 4Y e' 10 I II N m t to 500 DD0D Created (GMT), Mon Sep 24 14:59:56 2018 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5' 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 Duration 10 -min 1.5-m m 30 -min 60 -mm 2-41r ei-hr 12 -fir 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day --day 7 -day 10 -day ar 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60 -day 2 of 3 9724/20185 9:00 AM Precipitation Frequency Data. Server https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?tat=40.0203&... Large scale terrain 4 (_neyenne J For tCotlins 4 Peak r LI. II 1�_�_, Peak 4345.m • Greeley L' igmont B ould+fir • ■ 'Denver • 100km 60mi '_'_•i', l ci IJ r Il 1111 c Large scale map N J Large scale aerial Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions[hnoaa.gov Disclaimer 3 of 3 9/24/2018, 9:00 AM GEMSTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiOMArICS SONIIONS ASCENT APPENDIX C Imperviousness Calculations Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page C-1 COMPOSITE BASIN-WEIGHTED"%IMPERVIOi S". CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE :liDECD 1:SDC\1 VI Table 6-3 Recommended Pesc ntage I mpertiiausness Vales Undeveloped areas Street Historic flow analysis Greenbelts, Agricultural Off -site flow analysis (when land use not defined) Paved Gravel Recycled asphalts Dives and walks Roofs Pond Surface lmpn 2.00% 2.00% 45.00% 100.00% 40.0% 75-()0% 90.00% 90.00% 100.00% Total Area Percent Tmperv, Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Arca Area BASIN 796316.87 7963] 6.87 40.00% BASIN 1 NORTII RETENTION POND - GRAVEL AREA BASIN 1 NORTH RETENTION POND - RECLAIMED AREA 171398.31 17139831 2-00% 60978.97 60978-97 101.00% BASIN 1 NORTH RETENTION POND - POND SURFACE Acres (LOU 3.93 0.00 0.00 18.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 23.62 37.00% BASIN 2 LXISTTNCG RETENTION POND - GRAVEL SURFACE 493645.82 493645.82 40-00% Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.33 40.00% GEMSTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiOMArICS SONIIONS ASCENT APPENDIX D Rational Method Calculations Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page D-1 Calculation of Peak Runoff using Rational Method t- .Ii 7 G G i l 4? S } r u C,- r _ r> i - II II L _ II F. A 5, I I• a -2• 7. •J II I Cols ct t^ sera of ore r._r re J: c •Itr X C n u ? a❑ .; 1 v.+ a J u 8 Fenk Flrrrr. Ci (cfs C. G YJ . L i- 6 L N 8 h r. N L ti W .T r T le C. Y. L 8 f C- C in N }. p Ir. -.1 v N C 0 V o S I- -- rf. = a' - Tr. ri; C r.. - C =• € ._ Lc _ z. rr r} K •J p - LL N as C C w J t r„ Iv E.^ •n i= C C In Ll ti II o ;_ at 7 c ..a rn R - _ } u c- _ s• V Y U 'i• o z co L r O LL _ n { .L.CI %LI C V Llaii o ;h: {, u _ -I c i' w = 7 n L ° Cl C • '. W a C O C ° :r....4 - W r.n Q 7 i ti m mJ K 2 0 J cJ "6-- _, v, ^] C I- % - II_. ai 0 u V LL _ i a- wGO,f _ v r p n LL r- - _ : ° - CI w _ a 97 et OYeflRf,'7 Flay Lrngth L, (ft) ri =a a V S at U 4 I C. _ ^T L C. Co = - tt r, y ❑: it C: C. ULA : IN C: - DI 61 v C C T U. a 4. d = n a. u r, p n O 1J - L L r 0 I eq w -a y ra hf C E „ C •- L., --- i... -`,. t C GEMSTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiOMArICS SONIIONS ASCENT APPENDIX E Retention Pond Volume Calculations Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page E-1 DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD Project: Crestone Peak Resources - Narco Watten burg Laydown Site Basin ID: North Retention Pond (For catchments less than 160 acres only. For larger catchments, use hydrograph routing method) (NOTE: for catchments larger than 90 acres, CU HP hydrograph and routing are recommended) Determination of MINOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method Determination of MAJOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method Design Information (Input): I a = A = Type = T = Tc= g = P1= C> C1 = 02= C,; = percent acres A, B, C, or D years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) minutes cfs.lacre inches Design Information (Input): la A = Type = T = To = €f = P1 = C1 = Cr C3 = 37.00 percent acres A, B, C. or 0 years (2, 5,10, 25, 5D, or 100) minutes inches Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Return Period for Detention Control Time of Concenttration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate One -hour Precipitation Design Rainfall iDF Formula I = C1" P1!(C2+Tej Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 37.00 Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment MRCS Soil Group Rehm Period for Detention Control Time of Concentration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate Ore -hour Precipitation Design Rainfall IDF Formula I = Ci" P11(C2+TeYC2; Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 22.380 22.380 A A 10 100 40 40 0.00 0.00 1cfslacre 4.69 28.50 28.50 10 10 0.789 0.789 Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated): cfs cfs cubic feet acre -ft 5 -Minutes Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated): cfs cfs cubic feet acre -ft Runoff Coefficient InflowPeak Runoff Allowable Peal: C = Op -in = Outflow Rate Op -out = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume= Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = =- Enter Rainfall Duration Increrrrentai Increase Value Runoff Coefficient C = Inflow Peak Runoff Op -in = Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Ctp-out = Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 0.40 54.65 0.00 0 233,091 0.000 5.351 5 Here (e.g. 5 for Rainfall Duration minutes (input) Rainfall Intensity inches I hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "rn" (output) Average Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume acre-feet (output) Storage Volume &tre-feet (output) Ranftl Duration minutes (input) Rainfall Intensity inches I IT (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "m" (output) Average Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume acre-feet (output) Storage Volume acre-feet (output) 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 5 0.00 0.000 0.00 5 15.78 0.973 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.973 10 a.00 0.000 0.00 10 12.57 1.551 1.00 0.00 0.000 1.551 15 0.00 O.OOO 0.00 15 10.54 1.950 1.00 0.00 0.000 1.950 20 0.00 0.000 0.00 20 9.13 2.252 1.00 0.00 0.000 2.252 25 0.00 0.000 0.00 25 8.09 2.493 1.00 0.00 0.000 2493 30 35 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 30 7.28 2.692 1.00 0.00 0.000 2.692 35 6.63 2.862 1.00 0.00 0.000 2.862 40 0,00 0.000 0.00 40 6.10 3.010 1.00 0.00 0.000 3.010 45 0.00 0.000 0.00 45 5.66 3A41 0.94 0.00 0.000 3.141 50 0.00 0,DD0 0.00 50 529 3,258 0.90 0.00 0.000 3.258 55 0.00 0.000 0.00 55 4.96 3.365 0.86 0.00 DODO 3.365 60 0.00 0.000 0.00 60 4.68 1462 0.83 0.00 0.000 3.462 65 DAM 0.000 D.00 65 4.43 3.552 0.81 0.00 0,000 3.552 70 D.00 0.000 0.00 70 421 3.635 0.79 0.00 0.000 3.535 75 0.00 0.000 0.00 75 4.02 3.713 0.77 0.00 0.000 3.713 80 DM 0.000 0.00 80 3.84 3.786 0.75 0.00 0.000 3.786 85 D.00 0.000 0.00 85 3.68 3.855 0/4 0.00 0.000 3.855 90 0.00 0.000 0.00 90 3.53 3.920 0.72 0.00 0.000 3.920 95 0,00 0.000 0.00 95 3.40 3.981 0.71 0.00 0.000 3.981 100 0.00 0.000 0.00 100 328 4.040 0.70 0.00 0,000 4,040 105 0.00 0.000 0.00 105 3.16 4.095 0.69 0.00 0.000 4.095 110 0.00 0.DOD 0.00 110 3.06 4.149 0.68 0.00 0.000 4.149 115 0.0D 0.000 CLOD 115 2.96 4.200 0.67 0.00 0.000 4.200 120 0.00 0.000 0.00 120 2.87 4.249 0.67 0.00 0.000 4.249 125 0.00 0.DOD 0.00 125 2.79 4.296 0.56 0.00 0.000 4.296 130 0.00 0,00D 0.00 130 211 4.342 0.55 0.00 0.000 4.342 135 0.00 0.000 0.00 135 2.63 4.385 0.65 0.00 0.000 4.385 140 0,00 0 N 0.00 140 2.56 4.428 0.54 0.00 0.000 4.428 145 COD 0.000 MOO 145 2.50 4.459 0.64 0.00 0.000 4.469 150 0.00 0.000 0.00 150 244 4.509 0.63 0.00 0.000 4.509 155 0.00 0.000 0.00 155 2.38 4,547 0,63 0.00 0.000 4.547 160 0,00 0.000 0.00 160 2.32 4.585 0.52 0.00 0.000 4.585 165 0.00 0.000 0.00 165 2.27 4.821 0.62 0.00 0.000 4.621 170 DAN 0.DOD 0.00 170 222 4.656 0.52 0.00 0.000 4.556 175 0.00 0.000 0.00 175 2.17 4.691 0.81 0.00 DODO 4.691 180 0.00 0.000 0.00 180 2.13 4.724 0.61 0.00 0.000 4.724 185 190 DAM D.00 0.000 DAD 185 2.09 4.757 0,61 0.00 0,000 4.757 0.000 0.00 190 2.04 4,789 0.51 0.00 0.000 4.789 195 0.00 0.000 0.00 195 2.00 4.820 0.60 0.00 0.000 4.820 200 DM 0.000 0.00 200 1.97 4.851 0.50 0.00 0,000 4.851 205 COD 0.000 0.00 205 1.93 4.880 0:60 0.00 0.ODO 4.880 210 0.00 0.000 0.00 210 1.90 4,910 0.60 0.00 0.000 4.910 215 D,00 0.000 0.00 215 1.86 4.938 0.59 0.00 0.000 4.938 220 0.00 0.DOD 0.00 220 1.83 4.966 0.59 0.00 0,000 4.966 225 0.00 0.000 0.00 225 1.80 4.994 0.59 0.00 0.000 4.994 230 D,00 0.D0D 0.00 230 1.77 5.020 0.59 0.00 0.000 5.020 235 D.00 0.00D 0.00 235 1.74 5.047 0.59 0.00 0.000 5.047 240 0.00 0.000 0.00 240 1.71 5.073 0.58 0.00 0.000 5.073 245 0.00 0.DOD 0.00 245 1.69 5.098 0,58 0.00 0.000 5.098 250 0.00 0,000 0.00 250 1.66 5.123 0.58 0.00 0.000 5.123 255 0.00 0.000 0.00 255 1.64 5.148 0,58 0.00 0.000 5.148 260 0,00 0.000 0,0D 260 1.61 5.172 0.58 0.00 0,000 5.172 265 MOD 0.000 MOO 255 1.59 5.195 0.58 0.00 0.000 5.195 270 0.00 0.000 0.00 270 1.57 5.219 0.57 0.00 0.000 5.219 275 0.00 0.000 0.00 275 1.55 5.242 0,57 0.00 0.000 5.242 280 D,00 0.000 MOD 280 1.52 5.264 0.57 0.00 0.000 5.264 285 290 0.00 DM 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 285 1.50 5.266 0.57 0.00 0.000 5.286 290 1.48 5.308 0.57 0.00 0.000 5.308 295 0.00 0.000 0.00 295 1.47 5.330 0.57 0.00 0.000 5.330 300 0.00 0.000 0.00 300 1.45 5.351 0.57 0.00 0.000 5.351 Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (cubic ft.): 0 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (acre -ft.) = 0.0000 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre -ft.) = UDFOD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35, Released January 2015 233,091 5.3510 I"arco-Wattenburxg Laydown - North Retention.xls, Modified FAA 11/772018, 9:22 PM DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD Project: Crestone Peak Resources - Narco Watten burg Laydowrt Site Basin ID: North Retention Pond Inflow and Outflow Volumes vs. Rainfall Duration 6 5 S 0 47 0 E a 3 2 0* iit 0 50 s► A' ki s► Ca sc r.c 100 150 - Minor Slorm lnflow Volume IA nor SlormOulflow Volume U5LL:'II 11 sL L 'It 200 250 Duration (Minutes) folnor Siam Slorage Volume - r Jor Slorm Inflow Volume 300 350 s Mir Sla'rn OillIci r Volume • Major Slorm Siorege Volume 1 UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35, Released January 2015 Ilan'ca-Wattenburg Layclottin - North Retention.xls, Modified FAA 11/772018,922 PM GEMSTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiOMArICS SONIIONS ASCENT APPENDIX F Retention Pond Stage -Storage Calculations Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page F-1 North Retention Pond Stage -Storage. tact Crestone Peak Resources Project: Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Basin Description: North Retention Basin Contour Elevation 5,006.00 5,006.20 5,006.40 5,006.60 5,006.80 5,007.00 5,007.20 5,007.40 5,007.60 5,007.80 5,008.00 5,008.20 5,008.40 5,008.60 5,008.80 5,009.00 5,009.20 5,009.40 5,009.60 5,009.80 5,010.00 5,010.20 5,010.40 5,010.60 5,010.80 5,011.00 5,011.20 5,011.40 5,011.60 5,011.80 5,012.00 5,012.20 5,012.40 5,012.60 5,012.80 5,013.00 5,013.20 5,013.40 5,013.60 Contour Depth Incremental Area (ft) Volume (sq. ft) Avg. End (cu. ft) 33,111.28 33,837.21 34,567.16 35, 301.12 36,039.09 36, 781.06 37,527.05 38,277.04 39,031.04 39,789.06 40,551.08 41, 317.11 42, 087.15 42, 861.20 43, 639.26 44,421.33 45,207.41 45,997.50 46, 791.60 47,589.71 48, 391.82 49,197.95 50, 008.08 50,822.23 51, 640.38 52, 462.55 53, 288.72 54,118.90 54,953.09 55, 791.29 56, 633.50 57,479.72 58, 329.95 59,184.19 60, 042.44 60,904.69 61,770.96 62, 641.24 63, 515.52 N/A 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 6694.85 6840.44 6986.83 7134.02 7282.01 7430.81 7580.41 7730.81 7882.01 8034.01 8186.82 8340.43 8494.84 8650.05 8806.06 8962.87 9120.49 9278.91 9438.13 9598.15 9758.98 9920.60 10083.03 10246.26 10410.29 10575.13 10740.76 10907.20 11074.44 11242.48 11411.32 11580.97 11751.41 11922.66 12094.71 12267.57 12441.22 12615.68 Page 1 Cumulative Volume Avg. End (cu. ft) 0.00 6694.85 13535.29 20522.11 27656.14 34938.15 42368.96 49949.37 57680.18 65562.19 73596.20 81783.02 90123.45 98618.28 107268.33 116074.39 125037.27 134157.76 143436.67 152874.80 162472.95 172231.93 182152.53 192235.56 202481.82 212892.12 223467.24 234208.00 245115.20 256189.64 267432.12 278843.44 290424.41 302175.82 314098.49 326193.20 338460.77 350901.99 100-yr WSEL 363517.66 5,013.80 5,014.00 5,014.20 5,014.40 5,014.60 5,014.80 5,015.00 5,015.20 5,015.40 5,015.60 North 64, 393.82 65, 276.12 66,162.43 67, 052.76 67,923.08 61,389.60 58,365.89 56, 294.23 53, 959.15 52,927.52 Retention 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Pond Stage -Storage. tact 12790.93 12966.99 13143.86 13321.52 13497.58 12931.27 11975.55 11466.01 11025.34 10688.67 Page 2 376308.60 389275.59 402419.44 415740.96 429238.55 442169.82 454145.36 465611.38 476636.71 487325.38 GEMSTONE PEAK RESOURCES GEiOMArICS SONIIONS ASCENT APPENDIX G Hydraulic Calculaitons Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page G-1 Worksheet for Emergency Overflow Weir Project Description Solve For Headwater Elevation Input Data Discharge Crest Elevation Tailwater Elevation Weir Coefficient Crest Length 30.11 ft31s 5013.20 ft 5013.00 ft 3.37 US 25.00 ft Results Headwater Elevation Headwater Height Above Crest Tailwater Height Above Crest Equal Side Slopes Flow Area Velocity Wetted Perimeter Top Width 5013.70 ft 0.50 ft -0.20 ft 0.25 ftlft (H:V) 12.66 ft2 2.38 ftls 26.04 ft 25.25 ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Soktte9EIMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 11/7/2018 9:35:54 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet for Onsite Trapezoidal Channel Capacity Project Description Friction Method Solve For Manning Formula Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Normal Depth Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width 0.033 0.00250 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 ft/ft ft ft/ft (H:V) ft/ft (H:V) ft Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type Subcritical 8.01 5.00 8.32 0.60 8.00 0.59 0.02250 1.60 0.04 1.04 0.36 ft3/s ft2 ft ft ft ft ft/ft ft/s ft ft GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope 0.00 ft 0.00 Infinity Infinity 1.00 0.59 0.00250 ft ft/s ft/s ft ft ft/ft 11/7/2018 9:54:00 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Soktte9EIMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Onsite Trapezoidal Channel Capacity GVF Output Data Critical Slope 0.02250 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Soktte9EIMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 11/7/2018 9:54:00 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Discovery Site 36 -in Storm Drain Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (It) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) IF*r . ROHN 1O ck *MS DJ = 5012.00 = 100.00 1.00 5013.00 36.0 Circular = 36.0 = 1 = 0.012 = Circular Concrete _ Square edge w/headwall (C) = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 = 5018.00 = 20.00 = 100.00 a. SI. Sum ar.rw Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ftls) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime a c — treeing s _ 11 1 - r IX 11:9 nr- r }C CrtinaCinfari &dank ■ tit* AI. Wednesday, Nov 7 2018 _ ■ 0 V = 30.11 _ (dc+D)/2 30.11 30.11 = 0.00 = 4.99 6.91 5014.39 5014.78 5015.68 0.89 Inlet Control 4.0lga rb 1* J 4. qtr cx . _L CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCES ASCENT GEUMAYIc5 iULU1IONS APPENDIX H Construction Drawings Final Drainage Report for Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard Page H-1 x ,rr+ - / alti _�1 _ -- L. fr T t _ — — - _.... _ SJs__,rm_ VA sett r — yJ. r�C , M f,.i� - .o W _ —_ w be- at. -� Uw J+v _ud.... = Ult. .--00Wt.-Jtm .� {m w IS 7 INII NAB MI NM _ _. _ a a • Imo. M 7 I CPR NARCO-WATTENBURG SITE IMPROVEMENTS USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS './ • DYs'.CrMERYkV, TREAk' LEASE 7,1 I r I DIE= VERY LE BSE A.C ESS ROBD RETENTIfNBS SIN EOM! EL Vibit tlM1 REO i/az dut il'!CF d i / 2 l'I Ix:l HI: r cI'II I ".i4 1:•11F • "'T• IJF.F4cP _-Ek1STRAI ""- ACCESS ROAD 7 — • YI _ E KI.'.TIISi 1.AYDCr E1 ARE .f - O rI Il J • \. - x ��,_r '.L 1,5I I. if I I . d II1 , II ;I f i ~ J E::IETHO TALKS L J se S II . 1� a � 1f TY'EO_FdFR•: • I : $'L`r'i a' 11J .7.KSLF . NI 141 II 115. Er-'1c`T-.2 NDE `LLTE=Sf ?I -2J. TIY, __, - IN --- as ' I --- r ▪ \ 2 !` ` f 5 / 1 1t 1 ( \ I 1.0 L Ir.- ~, JJ i\ ••„, E::( 11NG EIJPoED at I • ,• Lh� •'.., i FIFEUNE LC NOT MLitt RI] (� -' ...---t N ` \ 1 u° 1 }l t PIMP BCIS.-- �:_. ;Rtt GL t.:130 �� "+i JI il � `}�_.�+ ' . y' -'i 4 '-- , ti7 i 1.It I. 1 •aF / O it c 1 a �'. I I I i II I I i I I i NOTES. 1-6E&MN;S RE EASE D CN THE SS SLNPT1CN THAT THE EA FA UNE OF THE f.CIJTPE BST CI.VRTEROF SECT N'R•TON.RSep, EEBRSf} 9rc-E GETi.E EN THE A•ONLI:ENTS fJiO•'4FI HEREON. 2. ALL DISTANLE S AND EE AR N'i5'_HO.iN HEREON ARE ORCIJLD v-ALIE 5 SS OFF. NE&SIRED IN TEE RELLI THIS Mi. Ox TORTIONFRO_ECTION ILDF• IS EASED ON THE KORTHAWERIC NLM TIM OF t:Sa; US SIJR'JEYFOOT ir11H &LATITUDE ORIGIN OF ..:l.T'tT.hS' LUC A LOKOITt DE OF AN 31i3.11' AND A F. CA1E FACTOR ON TEE CENTRAL L''ERIGBN CF tJXCMEYACT'; THE LDP FELL:.E EAR I.IC . IS OEODETIONORTH. .t. ELE •/ATIONU. SHOI}N ARE NA,0 M. DERIVED EY CtIlf. OE SER•iATIOHS. LEGEND -- r. - w. 41-•t.R:..YI:. '1 - DRAINAGE DITCH CROSS SECTION DETAIL n S DIG SAFELY OEFCRE "CU DIG CALL t-800-922-1987' LrILI-`r k1G-IFIC4 ICN CE r'rC R CF CCLCRADC '•I F+?I1, r - FEAT( P.E';Y'IJR[.'E5 1&j1 CAl IFOR'JIA Z+T;oLJITF 4.;(1.1 Denver, CO 80771 U. J de de O u u t4 T C u Cc Sc 1`7. RE415I0N DESGRIPT NJ • F.} t1'E 08.0'9.20118 _•it •.I C 11 -Ca- 318 ▪ 7L- -1. I- M.TC E -E:" IJ C-1 WO van . -a Surfarr Ritatheni1r OCR It e-.1 _Ssivaid aa1meat.? ,.. Nit_ ye iLC c -.c' VIM tan iw a SOY Y YYaI re s a.,;1, // t pat e)J �r eq-ater 004 le • a t • I r- e t e4 a aaa aaa -a: WI. Lars. `!Yc'" E" -I • er la 104a tea t t$- t f Valetta Sill Frig IS Ft Sr an V 4 J ��. f ran .-•••-a.. • _ere r -e I al OMAILL M ItL.le J. I.4 of I ITa>!°l •r-- 1_P I vile rigae'i as halal Le.. ae oar -- k.aa r Ft," CPR NARCO-WATTENBURG SITE IMPROVEMENTS USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS Sariarr antic I" cell l attain t Si SAS aa. -ail' r fl *tea ao. at an leak sewn alga anon -anonRasaaa-- Ytatl a- lsa Vatic L a- -i l..- sesta . .. � t ' - la ••••••••• MY • al et airral arra idea 'We a acts\ set+ a.•a. a !VMS L 11t till a Y a 010 isP 1sI ns anal a • L .IYana- a SLIP VINE asarea . a S. are a alie a ■ a ea Iat a Mb ata w ~lea- rat al la. anal at m. cane. - man saes a lam aim* a $es as.. — sat a ram aria ant e i tall Or air�rParr�lr w art a as a Y1r — an war L 1 diet alt Timm tit t ias a - -r;; -- T Melail a --a- san aeab Wa tre mssal i i si pia 12:11".= rib a as.. SCA i tr ef. • t ar Vases ass, l" .. taan Mk FINS (SF} • linassu t. :se aa.aabIall es n Pee v an la 4aae tr le L JAMS In *V — man la a fast cam seen a n. Wes leer It al •en •- a ar a• a a Ylrr aaraIalaallsaaiLMr- rt--ary riiiita-+if trap ■ an. a•aa rn°lanai w al,t lot to • as 3eo Y ail • aww la/t a aa:l adwalla MOP is a. L —4 R r.aar`an a.4- alaa iv • :+ac eat - Iranian -fl a.a. -9l weal waara Stan air Teela an el -a n eYn awns( . fae a faaa. at can't, awta Stall a.a-u > Mciia — _— as call s. irw lL •• •-• f-ZLa tiZtrinuir.a---ttiiee-car re•aw to =lratibilat7r.t.2a-lt'a a -al Ra �a �alaV -ame r 4-4•••••••• 2 nle• aUaR a1'atreal. a' tea a t a•1102a • a• err -- .tea --p an. t Pert ia�ia-i �-p a -. aa r aR'sew ar- I aM a, anal a lira as awl as as IN r ado. Ala — i as— a. al SE 1!aM.aa a Mr•a a -St as a -- -In .-w.e as an w am "e-int-a aya�. __-_- ai as Sal at niS Ss — Cs --.• Ys Vet e,r-. e- — VW rsettle —! - KM Emmert F as riatial ne er Ma Earth [ bid ,.awl Dra acj tirnaka IEill* - EC -ID IS -t. CENPACITM isti t ligirri tar f O,Sia !r a% WE li a l l 19r-1 rrwswrri Ilit Sr rirxan Mir - r_ ran ll.a. t-a.VSL#;r1 AID "'"'"'Zrre; a a rimLlea Set t .eaYb a aa1 a' aua r •a -lw Erg tn-n 4'awl!Arta Mil RI OW Men n-na fan t 4. CSC t-a`ti' infra PPS] La• in' iLrtiass l liad4ag 4'onivo, Ff SM—hl War aa�'CPA= i Y a � r !Mars — —. a I'�gay-i O. _1= ti vtl= I n. e a a�l •lY ,ras r Sinn* rnte r at � �� awls cam-t�I ..i �.{� rats_ ate, lf: .f i•er e--• clan rain a Intel.r- ryl as ,'t _. -Las t it al 4 -- — e,e r�SJ._a-j rr wig wa.It IN Lruwr.' rrrsta le err r t"rem selibet awe pia Liam Earth Da rad fra4alpr Stake 1141.6] _ El -ID all as a all as a rasa Zan nO re-` ,? rJ !4.e I eft no. rs0 9t® a a. a rant I or Matti as 'aa. i'i a mar101100001 OP etre li-sria_i,i r n1UP 'eV' tit el'er tee w• !HL et ?Sr An= 7.0114.10101.""P was c Per F L5,2?" —.ST" `71'6 - -? Mr. • ran. se !rL aaft ma as a- -a— - - a *mina a r-arl- SEIM Y•tI-tai et a.e _ —. a- • ,••_._ - r. a. awl a, -a-ells I.,,. t- Pew elf aH •.--}!.r_-n• 'hid*lirtldf get®Mrn$1'4 R -I gait - _,aQ • SIte r Were e rate -rte e r salS Farm ctrl anal i a t__ a e aY • c -n— .. ti alma.. .sit -iM-• -t L erL- 'stat .n a an"Lir as a a. a a aa-r 11-.li' i Nli Y Jlltllifl rI s 4i- 6 E,s— •'..+Sr�;C,va"'..$'L� 1126 11.&21. t .t�_ants Enta ants Lea Ir a �- al+a _ —cane rya rs • liana Milallalina • as MIT IOW Mel a s .a Aw lal --s 0•01.1 N --, 55 See care sa MBa iii. Ittsa n aMi ea MIMICa - can e asa at WIMIIMIN vas is a i1 • ,. as �ai a a lit S A tiff s M23141, "araa:ais teaa 0as InalEi.maramIlitsO4MAL ran ii 1> ran tart aL rt "Si n Ie Q. See rVeil. rteal rovIVew�al irrrarw• liairla a le feat Ascen; Geomat cs Solu:ioiw 7535 Hi IIUp C ids Denver, CO S0771 ':f l•. -.f It -aP- ;;RE ]T[tiE FEAT( P.E':Y'IJR[.'E5 1&i1 CAI IFnFNIA ST,cLIITF 4i6:1 41, -J a a RE415I0N DESGRIPII<NJ 68-0.9-2018 -.rL eI -; C I-08-2018 .rr -I. i- MTC E -E:" id C-2 CPR NARCO-WATTENBURG SITE IMPROVEMENTS USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ASONT IY I tldtlLLth::1• 'J:tkFL•1.T .:• RIB-. / •...... /—'or.. f J IP 1. 1 f ' 1 T t ]�---)L - ' li I. -s -- � t'ir ----I -'''"--- t - J -yam i,�-r�r IIIIr } 1 ~ - Z I DAM 1LL} J R rm r . 1 -' 1 t J 1 -ii,I A ' V -,L, E:{ISTNO LAND;WiH YARD E:lStik UEr SE SS.ION mag "SW rs-1 II FLO 1•-¢ -4 1[ ii -47:▪ 7 r 1- • _ r,l EA51N' MDT VOOIRE O.:S. r cal OF THIS. >.TIJUt r I BASIN DRAINAGE MAP - PROPOSED I - I • • lean ▪ = AREA IN ACRES C =SYR COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS • = 10.0-YR COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS E DESIGN POINT DESISNATICN BASIN BOINDARY LINE FLOW DIRECTION DRAINAGE BASIN SUMMARY TABLE — PROPOSED CONDITION AREA ENE ROM CY WLLYPNY A cen: Geomat cs Solu:iol}s 75.35 Hili4pCrrUe Denver, CO EV,1 ce D'.' Ire.oc FLAY FR:,PQSED I. IliEnt rj ft • REvUSU)N DEx:RIPTPX4 08-09-2018 1 4-06-201 TC DRAINAGE REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Project Name: USR19-0019 Crestone Narco-Wattenburg Laydown Yard The purpose of this checklist is to provide the applicant's Engineer a basic list of items that County Staff will review in regards to a drainage report. The drainage design shall meet the requirements of the Weld County Code and commonly accepted engineering practices and methodologies. A detention pond design (or other stormwater mitigation design) is appropriate for projects which have a potential to adversely affect downstream neighbors and public rights -of -way from changes in stormwater runoff as a result of the development project. The design engineer's role is to ensure adjacent property owners are not adversely affected by stormwater runoff created by development of the applicant's property. REPORT VI = complete, ❑ = required) Stamped by PE, scanned electronic PDF acceptable Certification of Compliance x xl ■ x Variance request, if applicable — submitted, will review with County Engineer when report is complete Description/Scope of Work Number of acres for the site — See Number 1 and 2 below Methodologies used for drainage report & analysis Design Parameters Design storm O Release rate - NA URBANIZING or NON -URBANIZING Overall post construction site imperviousness ❑ Soils types — See Number 3 below Discuss how the offsite drainage is being routed Conclusion statement must also include the following: X xi Indicate that the historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained in such a manner that it will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned ponding of storm run-off for the 100 -year storm. How the project impacts are mitigated. Construction Drawings ❑ Drawings stamped by PE, (scanned electronic PDF preferred) Drainage facilities El Outlet details - NA Spillway Maintenance Plan xl X1 xl Frequency of onsite inspections Repairs, if needed Cleaning of sediment and debris from drainage facilities Vegetation maintenance ❑ Include manufacturer maintenance specifications, if applicable Comments: 1. The report indicates that there is a retention pond existing for Basin 2. Public Works does not have any design for this pond. Please submit the existing design or calculate the runoff and verify that the existing pond meets the requirements of the Weld County Code. 2. The report indicates that 8.01 cfs is used for the design of the channel. How was this determined? If there is a sub -basin used for this determination, please show it on the site plan. Include the rational calculations used for this design. 4/11/2018 Weld County Department of Public Works] Development Review 1111 H Street, Greeley, CO 80631 I P h : 970-400-3750 I Fax: 970-304-6497 www. weldg ov. oomidepartments/pub lio_works/development_ review/ DRAINAGE REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST 3. The report indicates that the site is 60% type A soils and 30% type B soils. The NRCS soils data shows type B and C soils for the site. Use type B and C soils. 4. Page 3, Section 2.2.4, last paragraph — correct "detention" 5. The version of the UD-Rational worksheet and the UD-Detention worksheet use different runoff coefficient values. Use versions of the worksheets that use the same runoff coefficients. 6. When using the UD-Rational worksheet to calculate the volume of a retention pond, use the 100 -year, 1 hour storm value and run the duration out to 1440 minutes. 7. The spillway design worksheet shows the crest below the 100 -year storm WSEL. 8. For the 36" storm sewer pipe, show more details. An easement may be required to allow for maintenance of this pipe. The USR18-0053 report does not include this pipe but includes the design of the swale. Is the 30.11 CFS from the spillway included in those calculations? 9. Once the revised design and drainage report have been submitted, the County may provide additional comments in addition to the ones listed above. Depending on the complexity of the changes made, a full 28 -day review period may be required. 10. Please provide a written response on how the above comments have been addressed when resubmitting the drainage report. Thank -you. 411112018 Weld County Department of Public Worksl Development Review 1111 H Street, Greeley, CO 80631 P h : 970-400-3750 Fax: 970-304-6497 www.weldgov.comldepa.rtments/public_works/development_ review/ To: Meghan Campbell From: Schuyler Hamilton Date: 10/26/2018 RE: Wattenberg Lighting Plan The lighting information of all permanent fixtures at the Wattenberg storage yard has been completed. There were notable items that were found during the inspection regarding the lighting at the Wattenberg storage yard. Operations at the yard are conducted during daylight hours with some activity occurring during the dusk and dawn hours during the winter. As lighting is not needed for essential job functions at the facility, lighting is sparse exceptfor high use areas of the facility. During inspections, each light fixture type was inspected for the model number and other identifying information to determine the exact specifications of each fixture. Upon inspection, some fixtures were found to not have any identifiable information. If information was not found on the fixture, the fixture specification sheets were based on the best available information on fixtures that are as closely related to the actual fixtures including the lamp sizing and wattage as well as the general design of the fixture. During inspections, multiple fixtures were found without lamps or were in a non-functioning state. While this does not inhibit operations at the facility, it may be necessary to improve upon the existing lighting to comply with future improvements and continued usage of the facility. Thank you, Schuyler Hamilton Lighting Key Light Poles (NEM)Read) Crouse -Hinds V -Series Incandescent Motion Sensor Lighting (Lito nia M otio n Light} FLAB Outdoor Nit as Halide W'allpack HA: be I Ou td E e c r L fhtin.6= Per irna lit e r !/ al pack red Barn Aux i iar y Lighting on South side H bbeIl Outdo or Light ng Qua rtal iter Series American Co mpict Fo Quick Reef Mee DocumrentNutr•Ler Lidhlirig a IWallenberg Facili IN Model Number Quanli ly Use Noles I.N r rt. 1 III r II:.c IJ6'/.1161:r isaU LI• rt 'II IV:: rl-.:;_.4 b - L. - .c :J.: L. -P I:II.. 11'n'.I II'I-. ... rtI. II::rW:1:' 11'I ;II'••r.1.1.1•.4 11.1 •I :II 1'1 -I 1::41:• <it-lr >r: M F.:. it:: 1• I:: r I1r: Y• .. IY•:I. 4.:.-.1x1-1 7. 4.: r.'LV..• 1.1 r I•I d. l agl•i.r. l±&te41 en nbaw A_: .-.I I•f-I :a P.�: rim /..: i-.11.1 •t :• Y.'1: • trGP A.: ... I .' I - v' I.r 1..- ill' :J r c✓<: ri<cl .1.:: :41 :. I I.11:•icl•I 1::•:d -411r:. •'I rl L-.. I r11:I: r.:' . :.:.:-.i..1. :.:plk.l 4. -.'.v l'.':. :J 1 . •::.:•: .I.. I' I'.. PI I.i1l ::-' 1' ..:': T.d11'r :. I' 1 ::' 111 P 1 • :-I-I•• r I4-:1 :. I'I 1.1:-11 :' :. :' V. h1 N. ri*:-I t.•Iii•r . Ldr:-..- 1'. 1:>:J I r 44'.d • :.:4 Pr n:hr:I'. .:•.P•id :: -I:..:.. I'. I.: I. k:i:• 4•c:• rli i•rc::•:-:-i11.1: i s o-als: i•f.•: rp ._ _-5. w:.I t..c.'. cl_il.::' Fr..<L':wrct•:.<d I4Y n41:4- o-.1:_ :-1.:•:.r i•r:.. _., r, 1'11:IC P1 :nit: i• P I•:1' i:1 N PI :.-Pi•.-I :.):. : •I.: 91hY1 :l.•ri:-• Pi ma r: FYA t:l ca l' 1:: :'t.4 :.P.-.: • 1 ▪ I .::.:x'.... I:I- r1I:I:1tiM1C1.11f::•:Fi•I C:4 •':.I I.. -..a1 i'•.I!'C #.••4 r:••• •:11' 1: •I. •F:d•r1:1.•1 i:' Pli:.l•C:Id1 I r 11:l.•ICr1. I.irv:o-• P1:• 1.1Hi1. •: •1' i•:-:J• r$W[{Ikr *.....:•:.:.::-.: •1. I>P rl I :I..<.'rcl_.l.:: P.<:_I-c=.c.IlMrnd:.n rlcw'.-r i-o-r:_r. .:r1r_lar..1. `c 1;. -d -:A i':-<'.IISL'1.4-i•.li:I.4i I'll Fri :•1-r l:•:1•r' I11.'tC Frlclrr V:l:'t-- i' 1.1.1.1 :I.•r.cic11.:Y.'• r 14.1 Y. rI'I:•'1::4•• . :d.: -:•1•u•tl::--re: c._I' :.•:-r 1-.-:.. Tr l r l l d_:rr:•- 1'. wr :' w:c. 115.1. Pr I' 111.1C: • 9::r• :.1:.:•I. CRE TONE PEAK RESOURCES July 24, 2018 Dear Neighbor, As you may be aware, Crestone Peak Resources purchased Encana's DJ Basin Assets in 2016. As part of that acquisition, we also obtained the nearby Wattenburg Yard, that is located north of County Road 4 and west of County Road 19. We are re -permitting this location with Weld County to ensure we are in compliance with how this location is being used. As part of that permitting process, we are required by the county to notify nearby neighbors, which is why you are receiving, this letter. The Conquest Site is separate from our permit. Originally, this location was permitted as a gathering facility. The yard is no longer a gathering facility. Crestone uses the yard as a storage facility for production equipment and drilling and completions materials. Occasionally, rigs are stored on location during maintenance or downtime. In addition, we partner with local emergency responders to host well site emergency response training when requested. We understand you may have questions about our Wattenburg Yard as we re -permit the site. We are happy to answer your questions and take any feedback you'd like to share with us. Our team is available to meet with you in -person or you can contact us via phone or email. Please see our contact information below. Phone: 720-410-8537 Email: commun tyrelations a crestonepr.com Web: www.crestonepearkresources.com Thank you. Crestone Regulatory Team 1801 CAIJFOR\IA STREET. SUITE 25001 DENVER, CO 80202 1120AI0.8531 I WWW.CREST"NFPFAKRESOURCES COV Property Owners Within 500 ft of Parcel # 146928400004 Date Account Parcel Owner Mailing Address R1757602 146927100017 HOWARD DONALD GARY (118 INT) R1757602 146927100017 HOWARD JOHN E (1/8 INT) R1757602 146927100017 HOWARD MARLA SUE (1/8 INT) R1757602 146927100017 JOHNSON JAMES HOWARD 1/6 INT R1757602 146927100017 SPAFFORD JULIA HELEN 1/6 INT R1757602 146927100017 ZIMMERMAN M ERMAN LINDA JO 1/6 INT R1757602 146927100017 HOWARD DAVID E FAMILY TRUST (1/8 INT) 8709 COUNTY ROAD 4 BRIGHTON, CO 806038901 R1757502 146927300016 PUBLIC SERVICE CO OF COLORADO TAX SERVICES DEPT PO BOX 1979 DENVER, CO 802011979 R6787646 146928200002 HOWARD D GARY (5/12 INT) Signature Property Owners Within 500 ft of Parcel # 146928400004 Date Account Parcel Owner Mailing Address R6787646 146928200002 HOWARD DIANA G (1/12 INT) R6787646 146928200002 HOWARD JOHN E (1/12 INT) R6787646 146928200002 D & C FARMS LLLP (5/12 INT) 8709 COUNTY ROAD 4 BRIGHTON, CO 806038901 R6781242 146928400003 HIGH SIERRA WATER SERVICES LLC C/O K.E. ANDREWS & COMPANY 1900 DALROCK RD ROWLETT, TX 750885526 R6781243 146928400004 CRESTONE PEAK RESOURCE HOLDINGS LLC 1801 CALIFORNIA ST STE 2500 DENVER, CO 802022638 R1111502 146928400025 HOWARD DONALD GARY (OWNER 1/6 INT) R1111502 146928400025 HOWARD JOHN EDWARD (OWNER 1/6 INT) R1111502 146928400025 HOWARD MARLA SUE (OWNER 1/6 INT) R1111502 146928400025 D & C FARMS LLLP (1/2 INT) 8709 COUNTY ROAD 4 BRIGHTON, CO 806038901 Signature Property Owners Within 500 ft of Parcel # 146928400004 Date Account Parcel Owner Mailing Address R8045799 146933000006 WARE JEANNE NE L R8045799 146933000006 WARE MICHAEL A 845 COUNTY ROAD 19 BRIGHTON, CO 806039228 R6084986 I 146934000009 WAGNER KENNETH R 50 INT M6085086 146934000009 WAGNER LUCILLE M6085086 146934000009 WAGNER CLIFFORD S 638 COUNTY ROAD 19 BRIGHTON, CO 806039227 R6084986 146934000009 WAGNER CLIFFORD S-50 INT 648 COUNTY ROAD 19 BRIGHTON, CO 806039227 R0303587 146934000012 PUBLIC SERVICE CO OF COLO TAX SERVICE DEPARTMENT PO BOX 1979 DENVER, CO 802011979 Date From: Todd Hodges To: Meghan Campbell Cc: Claud Hanes; Chris Cross; Alyssa Knutson; Tom Parka Jr. Subject: [EXT]RE: Crestone USR Application re: CPA of Ft Lupton and Weld County Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 8:26:49 AM Attachments: imageoO1.pnq Meghan, Thank you for reaching out. The site is outside our current comprehensive plan boundary (CR 6) based on an existing intergovernmental agreement with Brighton. We would not be able to annex the property at this time. Have a great weekend. Todd A. Hodges Planning Director City of Fort Lupton 303-994-3174 From: Meghan Campbell[mailto:meghan.campbellcrestonepr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:38 PM To: Todd Hodges cthodges@Fortluptonco.gov> Subject: Crestone USR Application re: CPA of Ft Lupton and Weld County Hi Todd, I hope that you are doing well. I am reaching out in regards to the notice you have hopefully received in regards to the pre - application meeting that took place between Crestone Peak Resources and Weld County in early March in regards to the USR for our storage yard located in Sec 28, 1N -67W at the intersection of CR 4 and CR 19. I would like to inquire when you would have available to discuss this project in more detail and if you have any questions. Thank you, Meghan Campbell Regulatory Analyst Main: 720-410-8500 Direct: 720-410-8487 Cell: 720-498-0425 Crestone Peak Resources 1801 California Street, suite 2500 Hello