The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20180591.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR17-0065 - RICHARD AND HEIDI ROBERTSON, C/O CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC Exhibit Submitted By A. Planning Commission B. Planning Commission C. Planning Services D. Ivan and Betty Hayward E. Applicant F. Applicant G. Applicant H. Applicant Applicant J. Applicant K. Applicant L. Applicant M. Applicant N. Applicant Tom and Jamie O. Herzmann P. M.L Richardson Q. Applicant R. Lloyd Land S. Ellen Sweiter T. Applicant U. Applicant V. Laurie Kuntz Greg Rabenhorst, School W. District RE -3J Description Resolution of Recommendation Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 2/6/2018) PowerPoint Presentation Letter of Support, received 2/20/2018 Landscaping Plan, submitted 2/22/2018 Civil Design Plan, submitted 2/22/2018 Erosion Control Plan, submitted 2/22/2018 Drainage Reaort, submitted 2/22/2018 Grading Plan, submitted 2/22/2018 Communication Plan, submitted 2/22/2018 On -site Wastewater Treatment System, submitted 2/22/2018 Maintenance Plan, submitted 2/22/2018 CDPHE Air Permit, received from staff 2/23/2018 Lighting Plan and Noise Modeling Report, dated 2/23/2018 Letters of Support, received 2/26/2018 Letter of Support, received 2/27/2018 Petition in Opposition, received 2/28/2018 Letter of Support, received 2/26/2018 Letters of Opposition, received 2/28/2018 PowerPoint Presentation, received Farm Lease, received 2/28/2018 Letter of Support, dated 2/26/2018 Letter of Support, dated 2/26/2018 2018-0591 X. Teresa Bartlett Angela Prokop Z. Ellen Sweiter Letter of Opposition, dated 2/28/2018 Letter of Support, dated 2/28/2018 Form Letters of Opposition individually signed (first 18 pages are a duplicate of Exhibit Q, plus eight new pages) 2018-0591 proOferty will be Pub beatings rniry tnis County Planning Corrtinission. and Board of County Commissioners, " _ . t�` " r Both heariNs be held at WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION 1150 "O" Street • Greeley, CO 80631 l 1119. Cornrrosttion Searing will be held on l'a632%),_±.4.___21011:S: at: ritg..&?.:PM Board o4 County Comrnissioner witic be held Oil J OAM plir,an, 20)? ra er Request A Site -Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas Support and Service FadlfitV (Cryogenic Gas Processing Plant) in the AI Agricuttura►il Zone District. cols Natriboc EFIDC44 Actin tffiSESSI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CON T A.C1 04-6 61,3VOSM AT ME WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT #'t.AN ii IvaC^. , Al 470--353.-4110. , 1 ' ) tc* . is tttstmkt *veto wthOcounkOttesAngtras .C ore,• % 114 444,17*! c Sths e: •L. M» ,WM.-A ts-teittv_ha i 4M it( iiNK1i tfo #girerri ;Wail B te% W4 salon* Mn ma disiftte A', Qe•rs* smoke! #i+c belie' r*" iittnna esi Sant livem *NW weer* VJ'_-yVI Y +., ; S ICJ& b{Rya:c-nr: s airs cr ac-` L,agta f 144sganshitoWn tniirsta 401* f -_ J concerning this property *i11 be Cou,tann1 Commission and nay ners Bard of County CornmAss ) Both hoarings wilt be. held at. WELD COUNTY 'ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 11 50 "Cr Street • Greeley, Commission Hearing will be held on 4145E,LavPgis' co, 2O a be O the at: 12; 34 Board of County Commissioner r Hearing tivi'Mtl be herd on feae4e4gY 2314 20)2: at LC> AM Applicant = Request Cade Humber '" iT -, i•S A Site -Specific Development Plan, and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas Support a n d Service Facility (Cryogenic Gas Processing Plant) in the ,, ,griCUlturat) Zone District ., acme 1r FOR FURTHER, INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT dit 4sn* AT THE WE LD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLAflP tNG 51E cyce s . AT 970-353 S OD. Int slaSelal nior"•_r� ansear<imii.e6.am Sews Seim tiEe -s.► a _'Ibr*+yi*•'el+ "Yaw ref lege r Yo[. iaill,•Arar.. Ass nes !via-'indi'1o. son se air F b.' -Ifrelifflatl.i+ ellas t *SS rtin a's+.wj!-.-- — Safi Set ( • -tee sO _ w sue -1 VIEW TO SOUTH/SOUTHWEST INTO PLANT SITE Asa d r .r ■ r VIEW TO WEST ACROSS SITE _ rr.- nar-- - arA o s attar limilhaer-, nib 3' VIEW TO WEST ACROSS PROPERTY .a _ mt., akilastaminr.,". b r Aar • 1 7 VIEW TO NORTH TOWARDS NEAREST RESIDENCE les .. a. 9."ea! rY � arm' — �� - - ... er—. r. r - . z — 15rw' e, �- r�ey �i-rte a_,a'•�-•. lifs girt illi �• ._ e m% : - _ S_ .- - as -' _!; °iRi' - �- • + In /■ i� _ c "3 "Iimitaiimaindlar iii wir. -IN a .. b lin ■■ Allillapl _ma ill Lai a VIEW TO NORTHEAST it ice.. in Or `—as 7 _ — - 7 .4 a'-�- aia. Albs nt gajit: rill' alai r - - �.� r �i p , - L ranr a aria 11; ishf: Ewe. t.- a t as �� : •.Jim■ ti r t. • NIS= . Air Pi Mat- ■_ e411 -—mil' ++�� 111 r sito="irat no fix ar Ake. r cgMMilakel..1.Pr "If "nitf z a a a_ ear a ar- eirphiliaittliosamiroimmior limmoi L— a La it _a a 1 ' ' isms+ m•r "Pa • �J' li • T%- _' taillaincamm 1st - may- sinam.s6 Board of County Commissioners Weld County Colorado February 14, 2018 Re: USR 17-0065 Richard & Heidi Robertson, c/o Cureton Midstream RECEIVED FEB 2 0 2018 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We own the property at 8947 CR 51 which is adjacent to the north of the proposed cryogenic gas processing plant. We have attended three public meetings and several meetings at our property held by Cureton Midstream. The information that was presented by them was more than adequate and addressed all the questions and concerns that we have about this facility. We found them to be very courteous and informative. They asked for any suggestions that we had to making it a better facility. We are impressed with their concerns with the safety of their employees as well as the surrounding community. We believe that the design of the facility will be sufficient to not be a great burden on this agricultural area. The berms that will be strategically placed will help block most everyone's view. Also, there will be mature trees planted on the berms to assist with restricting the view of the facility. Any noise caused by the equipment should be minimal with today's technology being used to make the equipment. The night lights will be located as to not cause a nuisance to the community since most of the houses are at least 1/2 mile away. They have talked with the fire department at Hudson and have received a favorable response from them. We believe that Cureton Midstream is totally commited in their efforts to be an asset to this area. We have received enough information from Cureton Midstream to support them with this project. We believe that they will be beneficial to the area by bringing employment opportunities for approximately 18 to 20 full time employees. 8947 CR 51 Keenesburg CO 80643 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Nick Holland <nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com> Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:39 PM Chris Gathman Tisa Juanicorena USR17-0065 Conditions of Approval Submittals 180221 -Front Range Gas Plant Landscaping Plan.pdf; 180222 Front Range Gas Plant Civil Design Plan.pdf; 180222 Front Range Gas Plant Erosion Control Plan.pdf; 180222 Front Range Gas Plant Final Drainage Report.pdf; 180222 Front Range Gas Plant Grading Plan.pdf; 180222 Communication Plan.pdf; OWTS Narrative.pdf; Maintenance Plan .pdf Please find the attached Conditions of Approval Submittal for planning case USR17-0065. Final Drainage Report Grading Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/Storm Water Management Plan Landscaping Plan Communications Plan Operation and Maintenance Plan Update on the Septic System Design (OWTS Narrative) We are waiting on our engineers to finalize our Noise Abatement and Lighting Plans. We anticipate these to be completed by mid -afternoon tomorrow. Nick Holland I Director EHSR 0: (720) 390-4506 C: (303) 324-5967 nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com EXHIBIT UL9'4\ -CO 1 LANDSCAPE NOTES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOND/ THE LANDSCAPE PLANS NO SPECIFICADOFS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE ANY SUBSTI TUTKON OR AL TERATKDN SHALL NOT EE ALLOWED WI NOW MPRCNAL O THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE OVERALL PLANT CUM/?TTY AND CkAt TV &ANL E CONSISTENT MATH THE PLANS 2 THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL PUNT WANT! TIES GRAPHIC CAANDTIES TAPES PRECEDENCE OVER WRITER OJANTITIES 3 DE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSPECT AND TAOALL RANI MATERIAL PFCOR TO SHIPPING TO TEE SITE IN ALL CASES THE MINERS REPRESENTATIVE WY REJECT RANI MATERAL AT THE SITE V MATERIAL S DAMAGED DISEASED OR DELL IMPG IN HEAL THAT TIE 1IIE a OFK'1E GNSPBCTON6 OR ir THE RANT MATER& DOES NOT MEE I THE MINIMAL SPECK TED STANDARD IDENTIFIED CNN THE RAMS AND IN THE SPEOFICATIONS `HF (XWERIC TOR SHALL COORDINATE WIN THE OYNJERS REPRPLENTATNE FOR' APECTIae NC APPROVAL OF ALL MATERLALS MID PROO(CTS IRlat 10 *e TALUTIC. 4 1FE MINERS REPRESENTATIVE MAY ELECT TO UPLIIE PLANT MATERIAL AI 1HEM DMOE COIL BASED ON SEticroe moray TY at TO ENHANCE SPEOFC NEAP OF TIE PICIECT THE C011RICTOR SHALL VERFY RANT MATERIAL SUES W TH MINERS FEPRESENtATNE P OCYT TO RAON&ING SNIPPING CR STD:MCC Pi/NT LANTERNS S $IT MANGE ORDER REQUEST TO OWNERS REPREMNTATNE FOR APNNRCVN K ADDITION COSTS RECE.(STR) BY TIE CMT RACTOR PRO_ TO WYSTAL LATICN RE StOCUVGOMRas WILL NOT BE MPROVp IF TIE CAMTRACTCR FALLS TOSUBMT A REQREST FOR MATERIAL Owes 5 THE CONTRACTOR Sit WARRANTY ALL CONTRACTED WORK MD WTERIKS FOR A PERIOD a ONE YEAR AFTER SUOSTANILK C0IPLETTCH ERAS MEN SSLED BY THE MINERS RF.PRESENTATNE FCR TFE ENTIRE PROJECT TRESS OTHERWISE SPECTER') IN THE COT TRACT C1t]TALENTS CR SPEOFICATIONS 6 REFER 10 HRMOATCN PLANS FCR LM TS AND TYPES a IRK GA1WN DESIOe® FCR THE LNOSC FE IN NO CASE SHALL IRRIGATION BE as RED WITHAL DE MINIMUM MINCE FROO NJLDING CR WALL FOUNDATCALS AS STIPULATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ALL 4IIOAIICN IMBUE ION LINES. HEADS AND EMITTERS SHALL BE KEPT OUTSIDE THE WMMUM DISTANCE AWAY FROM ALL BLMLDING NO WALL FOUNDATIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE GEOTECHN CAL REPORT LANDSCAPE MATERIAL Lai1TOC SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER IRRIGATION MALMINE AND LATERAL LOCATIONS COORDINATE INSTALLATION a IRAGATON EQUIPMENT SO THAI IT DOES F10T INTERFERE WITH THE PLANTING a TREES OR OTHER LAMOSGWE MATERIAL TEE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENAIWNGPG61INE DRNNACE EJ0SIS M AL UVOSCAPE AREAS SWFACE DRAINAGE ON LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL NOT FLOW TOWARD STRUCTURES AND Pavia Has MANTA" SLOPE AWAY F ROM FOUIEIATIOG PER THE GEOTECIwCAI REPORT NEIXJIIEMIADOFS ALL LANDSCAPE ARIAS BETWEEN WINKS AND CURBS SAL DRAW FREELY TO THE DAR UNLESS OtHENNASE ADEN TEED CON THE LADING PLAN IN NO CASE SHALL THE GRADE TURF THATCH CR OTHER LANDSCAPE MATERALS Ow WATER AGMST WALKS MIYLN SLOPES CR .aacAFE WAS SHALL E A MNOW N SLOPE SHALL E ISM UNLESS SPEOCC AU Y WRFC OF THE RAMS CR APPROVED PT T4 PAPERS REPRESENTATIVE i PRIOR W 1NSI4sATlat a PERM MATERIALS AREAS THAT HIVE BEER CORM TFD OR O6 LED BY CCWSIRLCTIDN ACIMTY SHALL BE DHORCUOty LOaEAED TO A DEPTH co F • IT AM) AEIOED PER SPexceiIOB 'C ALL IAFOSCAPED AREAS ARE TO R3.SVE OCsANC SCOL PREPARATION AT 3cu CDR/ OR AS NOTED IN THE TEOLOCAL SPEOFICATIOG TREES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN DRNNAGE SWALEa. OHRAs4ACf WAS OR wilt i TY EASEMENTS coact CWINERS REPRESENTATIVE FOR REL OCATE:N O RANTS IN QESTO AsE AREAS MICR TO INS TALLATICN '7 THE CENTER O EVERGREEN TREES SHALL NOT BE RACED CLOSER THAN f AND THE CENTER a OIV/MENTN TREES CLOSER THAW I FROM ASWEIA'ALK STREET CRERNE LANE EVERGREEN TREES SHALL NOT E LOCATED ANY CLOSER THAN IS FRa11RRIGATION ROTCR HEADS NOTIFY Y (MYERS REPRESENTATIVE IF TREE LOCATIONS COAFLCT WITH THESE STANDARDS FCR FURTHER DIRECTION '3 M( EVERGREEN TREES SHALL E FULLY BRANDED TO tit GROUND AND SHALL NOT EX HRCI SKNSa ACCELERATED GROWTH AS DETERMINED BY NE CANTERS REPRESENTATIVE 4 ALT TREES ARE 108E S TAXED AND GUYED PER DE TARS FOR A PERIOD C I YEAR TEE OGNMAC TOR STALL It RESPONSIBLE FOR REMCMNG STAKES Al THE DO O t YEAR F RCM ACCEPTANCE C LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION BI THE OWNERS REPRESENTATM CBI AN MPIDVAF Br CANNERS REPRESENTATIVE ma i TOREWMAL ALL TREES IN SEED CRIME AREAS SHALL RECEIVE MACH RIGS ankh APPLNAL ITCH OAKERS REPRESENTATIVE FCR Na TREES T W T RILL NOT E MUL0ED FOR EXCfSSNE WISTITRE REASONS SHAM (R SCCOVER AND KREMLIN BEDS ME W E CONLARE BY C 1 II CAGE MEIN ROLL TC ' S TEFLOOOG TYPE EDGER RYERSCN OR EQOAL EDDER S NOT REWIRED MEN ADAFDE;t TO CABS WALLS WALLAS CA sac F;.nnc WIIDM T a P EALAOED FINAL WOE EDGE( SHALL NOT BE REWIRED TO SEPARATE MACH TYPES L1laSS SF EaFED CIN DE RAMS ALL SHIN.. EOS NE TORE ILAOED 1MTN MMV A• DEPTH I VfO AL AVER FCC( LANDSCAPE WAD- OWER SPECTATED aOTEJE(T LE WEED.^7eTRCL F/t76C ALL CiOJN0 C OM:I MC REREMI% FLOATER *DS SHALL E IALOE) NNIH C DEPTH COMAE SHREDDED CEDAR WOOD LANDSCAPE NOLO.' NO WEED CONTROL Fa S %CURIO W G ROUTOC7JER CR PEAEMUL AREAS •6 AT SEED AREABOUCAPoES ADJACENT TO EXISTING NATIVE AREAS OMERLAP METING MAIM AREAS Er DE FTAL WDtH C THE SEEDER 16 EXISTING na AREAS THAT W OSIURED DUI,: CONSTRUCTION ESTABLISARNI AND IN F MMN;FRANCE PERIOD SMALL E RESTORED WITH NEW SCD TO MATCH ENSTIC TURF SPECIES OISIURBED MAINE. AREAS WHICH W TO REMAIN SMALL E OVER SEEDED NO RESTORED WITH SPECIFIED SEED WI 20 (XANMAC TCR SHALL OVER SEED ML MAINTENANCE CR SERVICE ACCESS IENOIES AND ROADS WITH SPEOF ED SEED MA UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED CN 14 RAMS 21 ALL SEEDED SLOPES EXCEEDING WAIN GRADE 141( SHALL RECEIVE EROSION CONTROL BLAME TS PRAM TO INSTALLAtTON . NOTIFY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE FCR APPROVAL O LOCATION MO ANY ADOTCHAT COST E A ONNa ORDER IS NECESSARY 72 WHEP4COWIEIE ALL GRACES SHALL E WI THIN .F lir OF FINSFEt LADES AS SLOVAN ON DE PLANS '6 PLANT LIST SYM OTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE 8 COND Chin c11q,*R 'CTED) CANOPY TREES OUR 17 Sol OM CT O KENTUCKY CCFFEE TREE PCW 13 RAINS ODITCFAM000 EVERGREEN TREES QUERCUS MAOta'ARPA ONANOCLADUS DKCu5 POPULUS DEL TO DIES 75'CAT BIB 25'CA. 848 2S'CAL W Alb C85 IA Pas e7 AUSTRIAN PINE CAO+ADD MIA SPRUCE PONDEROSA ROVE RIL V ROPY MDLMKTAW ANDER ORNAMENTAL TREES PINKS MCA HA(XA PLACERS PACS POVERDEN xwIPERUS SCOR)Lanb SUC OF STATER PAID• OOKEOER N EVERGREEN SHRUBS MALTS VIAONWNA P007S B -F TXX HuG TAN ce 06 10 03 BURRO .&TAPPER CaCGREEN .WAFER HUQE5 JUMPER TAMMY AJMPER DECIDUOUS SHRUBS AMAPERIS SABINA 'BURRO AXAPERUS SCCRJLOuM =CGREEV aavERuS ••OR120NTuu TROVES JUNPERUS SABINA'TN/AHSCJEO A @ CONY 16 CON 06 CONE PS CONE TORS 8F BSG CSS as sac 06 BLUE MSI SFARFA 05 SLIVER BUYTALUBERRY 00 SPANSH focal 16 SMOOTH OMEN SUMAC lA GROU0N SUMAC II SOPW CURRANT CARYOPIEWS K aaANDONENSIS SHEIMERDA ARGE NINA CYuWS Rigcwe SPAMSH car: RHOS Wake LAGMATA %AA NIOIKATCA GROW LOO TES CEREW IS CON A (MI 45 DONT 45 CON1 M6 COAT ORNAMENTAL GRASSES PC 77 FTC A. LBG 76 PDX Al PERENNIALS ram GLASS I{Af8 FaRL5TER CRASS LITTLE BLUESTFL CRASS PRALINE DROPSEED SCTIGHNSTRRAN MJTANS CAiNA aces T IS ALUTFLCAA TTNL FOERVER SO'IIAOMIRN scavaU1 SPOROBCLS EETERCLEAS M1 COAT BBL 07 CMW 07 PPM O6 PC1 OD BUTTERP I Y BUSH WALKERS LOW CAT W IT RED PENS IF Wi PFWME CCNLT LOWER NATIVE SEED MIX BLjCaEA DAYDII NEPET A FAASSENI WALKERS LOW PNSTEMON PIMFalLS RA I IB10A COIUANIFERA REO Al CONY Al CONY SCENTEC NW %C TOTAL P.5 PER ACE WESTERN NIT ATCRASS OIG BLUESTEM SLOE OATS I31ftMK i E ]RAW SHIMMIES ADTANGRAS5 _TRUE OLLESTEM AGROPYROM SIITIH NDROCCOCV MAC* BOUTELOUA C RTIPE DUAA BwTELaAA GRACA S PAMCAF Wr.241 UM SCAOHASTRIM AUTANS SOKLW3RYWW SCOFMFCUS 61 LBS 67 LBS ?MIS • ?LEIS 22 L85 27LBS e LBS TOTAL KOSS 72otSs OVERALL PLAN • 0 100 i00 400 I�\ LI/ NORTH E t' - 700 Mow all MINN. Callan NHS J.JJ NORRIS DESIGN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE Z2•01 xs^ RFYEW SHEET TITLE CVR L-0 LANDSCAPE PLAN EASING - VECETATO4 MATCHLINE L-1 In 6. 11alrH11R1fT-9" OUSTING DRAMACE 01101 /////''''�� BOST C VENATION TO REw1N /- EXISTING DM/NACE CATCH Ea'; VEGETATIh TO RERAN • • • PROPERTY Let TYP ld(CT SEED TOEwTBITS - S f of alp Tw . -rr1 .. :. : • .• •••• • • • • •F,,; .•t • r • i . . ewe MAIM SEED INTO oat LNS FENCE ENSTWODDNNTIONS 1YP RE CNN PLANT afil•C ICRAMS RE cm_ S PLANT SURFACING RE UHl PLANS 1 1 1 1 • LEGEND K • S DECDUOUS CANDPr TREE LARGE EVERGREEN TREE SMALL EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE OECDUOt. SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS ORNAMENTAL GROSSES PEREW45 BOULDERS STEEL EDGER PROPOSED OWING NKHOR PROPOSED GROOM NNW FENCING 1Tlr OTHERSI PLANING BED NAME SEED COBBLE L4 L•S.: 1.4 �J.J-) NOR IS DESIGN 1101 01110001 94/1 Darer, COwero OR20H P3 OB2 1100 f 303 8.2 HMI rIHM AOrt Fromm + eea. ...r. Del ow. Cell acv. you Op NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE Vdtin. r'CXMT V REVIEW SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE 0 15 JO BD PLAN NORTH SCALE t•. SD L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 emu, PLANT SURFA 2PC 7 fPTE CIVIL FLAILS a f $4 TING VEGET*10. TO TELNN °MIN 19+ FENCE RE CM 11.90 PATINE SEED INTO FXSTWCCO0TONS TYP WTpi,AE L "ATM S PROPOiTY UIE TYP SEED TOEXTEMS 1 ADS OF GRPONG TYP 3PON 2AUS 290M tALS }PON 2PCW I SAkS II ow we Isla sis EX* TING VEGETATION TO REMAIN KEY MAP L-7 L-1 L-4 -L•3, r L4 LEGEND OEcnuCAS CANOPF TREE a-ARGE EV-.GREed TREE OSMALL EVERGREEN TREE a DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE d' DECIOUGUS SHRUBS O EVERGREEN saes w GRMAMENTAI GRASSES IP PERENFAL S , BOULDERS STEL. EDGER PROPOSED GRADING 141.01 PROPOSED GRADING ISNO T FENCIG (B• CTIEnR51 KWIC BED NATNE SEE MORE JJJJ MOMS DESIGN .-..-.....r ti. •..r 1101 Bacot Soso Dorn. Coma 40204 PUMA 11* FROND 110 -w rwn►a n,am H 5 U) O w 1.11 Z a' Q ag LU Z O O§ ct z a rtnoor. v. Sow. CaIiron you dig NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE 32,7104 COUN'v PFVkiN SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE D IS ]D BO PLAN NORTH SCALE +• • Xf L-2 LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING - VEGf :ANON rO RE:A NN EAIsTIN0 VIM 1MICA 10 REMAWi Elr6TAIG - VEGETATION tO REMAIN MATCHLINE L-1 �AI�T�I�IIdEL'.� EUSImC UWV4AGE 011CA4 EOSI G DRAINAGE CH PLANT SURFAQAC. 7 RE '..'N: PLNa5 U ralliflEN rc t..-- ..-. ane A t --E. I11I-ff-t-fhI �-+M1A�TCHLIIN L- ~ MA�HL N L - { °LAAT FC..1PVffr,' FOR REcERENCE J V PANT ECUPIADO_/ FOR REFERENCE JJ 014. a =Ma MI a a ar-a aaa. a a w 010 P.ANT SURFACING J fRE ovt PLAN i KEY MAP L-7 L-1 L-4 Les,' L-6 LEGEND O 0 0 • NCOUR5 CANOVI TREE QTR& EVERGREEN TREE SMALL EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS ORt M(NTAL TREE DECEtgfl5 SHRt1Bs EVERGREEN SMAIS ORWMENtAL MAW 'I PERENNIALS STEEL EDGER PROPOSED GRACING liP.OR PROPOSED GRADING MCA ;EKING 181' OTvERS1 PIANTNCi BED NATIVE SEED Arr enbdaA. CA Mita IPA die. JJJJ NORRJS DESIGN �.i a rr. simp.,a.r 1101 Boma SAAR Ore, Carr Mil P 3030121i% E X13502 110 awaarsom — Z 5 (n W � O Z z m Q :se cc w. c- Zcai2 O0 z9, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE X21114:_C ?I r! REV& SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE 0 15 JO 00 PLAN LY NORTH SCALE T' • JO L-3 36 o& LANDSCAPE PLAN KEY MAP r I, L PLANT SuRFACJING RE CIVIL PLANS MATCHLINE iAFtirrN-4 C� a M a III III BLEND NATIVE SEED INTO EXISTING cc.c1TOF6 pip CHAR/ LINK FENCE RE CIVIL 01 .41 I ,1.4•4 Ki Al) 'r.,, ikF CIVIL O&M': 1xA'R.I' SEatCC RE OW. t. - tat' 64th TACT 1104 SAUS sr me am S NMI SEW TO EXTENTS CY ORICO G MD EXISTING VEGETATION ID REMAIN ■ IS S — NM L-7 LEGEND 0 0 0 c5�)> Sr y aw DECIUCIA CAVOof TREE LARGE EVERGREEN TREE SMALL EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN MIRIAM DRNAMENTAL GRASSES PERENMLS BOULDERS STEEL EDGER QED GRACING MAJOR P1.OPOSED GRADING MICR EEACNG IST O'PERSD PLANTING BED NATIVE SEED COSBLF L -S NO($IS DESIGN 1 tot Sirs Sun Drum. Colorado •0704 P DOOM 111)0 F ti*"IN ....noneargn mw 4Z 11. V C W Z Z N Q } -J a; LL O F-- d u Z U z Goa LL 5 Kwa son belolr. Cal l —raft NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE o is ao w PLAN L-4 Non, i :11- 30 35 01 w C LANDSCAPE PLAN KEY MAP MAJCULIlk EAS TN., .MATCHLINE L•S VEGE TATIIV. TO R&ATAIN MTN\ �cc VEGETATION TO REMAIN ARCADES 3>rD lE cn • . • . . • • • • • FASTING *zfAITON IO REMAIN a n a ORADIARA!MIIOE ,ALT 300% ALS raUR ll� .1.0'. .1::: 7-EASING VKTE TA,ION IOREMNN 4 a ALM, SUB A.Y; / /r RE Cn4 RATE, D P Lua FE`AF_ RE °A. &BO NATIVE SEED WC EASING CO0106. "VP s: a a .i N AN ! t QtxPNf'.' it(1i iRff. N • :TN * E 44 f 4 • FT &WREN? FOR REMY J Fc Utr CE70<fNGVEGETATION roREMAi.\ I 3AUS I CBS f J PUNT SUP'CMG J RE GAL PLANS BLEND NATIVE SEED IMO CASH AG SONOITIONS TYP EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IL ..-•--::_ ---T- L-1 L-7 LEGEND L-4 1.4 a 0 0 DEMME CANOP• TREE LARGE EVERGREEN THEE SMALL EVERGREEN TREE oE.T34000S ORNAMENTAL TREE DES swfLas EVERGREEN SHRUBS OMAENTA GRASSES • PERREA►Aas •, DOULDER5 STEEL EDGER RADFOSED GRAONG MAJOR FoNCAOSED OIADNG MICR =E.wc (8r O%reCS; PLANTINGBED NATIVE SEED COBBLE )i)) NODS DESIGN tit! Servos Snot On Caws 56264 P 363%2 MA Xelii0 110 Xw• flalfti43sele\O3. I — Z a O z Z Q Q 0 CCda Z U o 0 cc z LL 5 4•a r.r.Odow. Call stars pa •i NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE SZOn • MUSTY Hat, SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE 0 TS 30 60 PLAN ,IA NORTH SCALE r • r L-5 LANDSCAPE PLAN KEY MAP _ _ MATCHLINE L -d LIT " R4 w w z S U z J x 0 1 , • PI,N -SNA 1 1 PLN.' S.:SFM:PIA:. iKL i.Y,I a ANS PLANT C 7 fRE O.M. PLANS ACCESS DRIVE RE OVA SION RE OVA I 34LS OWN LINK FENCE RE CAM Coea a a •r i BLEND NAME SEED 11410 EX61/N01;C/.TAT*YG lwP EXISTING PRNAIE 0iVVEWAV 3.432 4P01. i. EXISTING VEGETATION 10 REMAIN yamil RIB rmas� � I II 6PVN .''.•'�.• •SC.5'.'. 1 ACES • • •I I O 3 roIIc1ITED Nit'VE SEEP' iRPoUAlED NATIVE SEED • 1-7 LEGEND 1-1 P ;La 1J DECIDUOUS CANOA' TREE JR% EVERGREEN TREE SMALL EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS ONAMENtAL TREE DECIDUOUS MAULS EVERGREEN sass C NAIAINTAt ( s3 PERE/NIA S BOULDERS STEEL EDGER PROPOSED GRADING wa PRCEYSED GRAZING AMOR PEIICIRG rr1' CT 6LS1 PLAVTBcG BED MTNE SEED COBBLE JJJJ NODS DESIGN 1101 Brim Stream Drys, Cando 10701 P W3S I11B I 3071011$ rw 4011,411001113)P1 w r.ONor. Ca w/m yew as NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE ',1T(j!/..1 I.a' ' REVIEW SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE 0 15 30 BD PLAN LrLi NORTH SCALE 1• - ]0 L-6 LANDSCAPE PLAN ROBERTSON PROPERTY 161/46 tPON SRMJ AUS lau t NMJ IPON PRDPER1V Lift TYP KEY MAP `H L-! r Iva L-4 LEGEND L-6 a 0 0 oEcL,a6 CAOOPV 1REE LARGE EVERGREEN TREE WALL EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS ORNAMEN TAL IREL DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS ORNAMEN1AL GRASSES Y PERENNIALS NORTH S0LIDERS STEEL EDGER PROPOSED GRADING MAJOR PROPOSED GRADING MINOR FENCING IBP Di14RS1 PLANTING BED NATIVE SEED JJJJ NOMJS DESIGN 1101 BSbw SPAR Oans. C01011102 BUN P 103 STY 116 F lDT SS711Y VINO w'►ollOpnmll I- z 0 Q D` Z O cC COB&E Wes. you 4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE 2i1n* REVI&I SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE 0 15 Jo Bo PLAN Lirrl SCALE 1•. L-7 �jJJ NODS DESIGN 'ewe' a.••.•wie ' S • a fr Lair ~ Mrar • R., PLAN VIEW THREE STAKES tc b CO' M: 1x1'1 O TREE PLANTING DETAIL PAINING NOTES I ALL AMONG SHILL COMPLY MIn ANSI A300 STAICNID5 7 DO NOT HEAVILY PRLAE 116 TREE Al PLANIMI PRIM OM Y CROSSOVER LAIRS COOOMNWI LEADERS AND BRMEN WAKES SOME INTERIOR TW EIS NC ATERAL BRANDIES AMY BE PRIMED 490/4EVER DO N01 REMO& THE IERMNAL BIAS CT BRAFTDES THATEXTHC TO DI EDGE OF TIE CROMN I7PAAO NOTES • STARE TEES PER FOLLOWING G SOEQAE THEN Rf MOLT AT END OF FTR.ST GROWI C SEASON I I I4'CALCIERSUE •M N •5TME ONSLOE OF PREVAILING WIND (GENERALLY NW 510E 12 14 -7 CALIERSIE Wi 2VINES 0* OPEN* 40E at CA W SCE TOR PcEVNtNG WAND SIDE AND It FROM ThN1 SIGEI 13 7CAJFER SIZE AM LARGER 3STAKES PER DLEGRAH 2 WIRE CR CABLE SHALL BE MN 12 GAUL£ IIHITEN WIRE. OR CABLE OIY ENOCH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING ALLOW FOR SORE TRUNK MOVEMENT NYLON STRAPS SHALL BE LONG ER=1n TC ACCOMMODATE It OF GROWTH NC BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM VANE 0 0 0 0 0 PUCE MN 4' PVC APE MOLAC 0 EACH WARE EXPOSED WIRE SHALL M %MAX 7 EACH SIDE 0 KT T WIREATEO W000 POST IRAN 15' OWIEIER) ALLBRIM). BF DRIVEN OUTSIDE ROOTBALL O NQ N LAOSTLRle SCA TREE WRAP TO BE PGIACLED O OAY FROM OCTCBERI TMQo. a x (OEORAL.S Oln 0 PLANT TREE SO THAT FIRST ORDER MOOR ROOT LS 1•.7 ABOVE FINAL (WOE 3' DEEP MAADI RING PLACED A 'ANNUM Oi M FT IN OIMFTER 00 NOT PUCE MACH IN O CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK (FINISHED GLADE REFERENCES TOPMACH) � I 1 SICK ON SIDES CO RANTING/() HOLE REMOVE ALL DANE ROPE BURAP AM WIRE TI CKS ENTIRE ROOT BALL NC TRUNK O OIQMEIEO NYLON s1RAPs GALVANZED WARE MA I7 CAGE CA&i TVA T LANE ace TO KEEP FRCS (NORM 147 •qO RATERSNIDER IN NONE BURP NEWS BAQ(FIU OATH tEAO OF •DISlWG SOHO NE) A MM1OMN 201E (WV VOLUME) °FGI& MATERIAL WATER THCRDUQtY FAEN BACKFALNG 2FT STEEL 1 POST All BULL BE DAWN BELGA GRADE NC OUTSUE RODIBALL IN UNDISTURBED SOL PUCE SOL MOM ROOT BALI FIRMLY 00 NOT COMPACT OR TRAP SETTLE SOIL WITH WATER TO FILL AL L NR POOLE TS RACE ROOT BALL Oh UNDISIURBE➢SOT TO PRf.VINT SET ELEMENT + • S • . * s + P + .• + R -4- SPACING PERENNIAL PLANT LAYOUT O SP* GE) MAO, 0 AMENDED RANTVG BED TILLED TO A DEPTH CO O CENTER OF PLANT MEN RANTE) ON A CANE GREAT ROANS TO FELON LIE LG GRAS O< AREAS WHERE RAN TS ARE LOSSES NOTES EXCAVATE RAFTING HOES WITH SLOPNOSDES DO NOT OS TIT® SOON AT BOTTOM OF PSTING HQES. Iii DO SCORE TIE SCES CO THE PLAITING HOLE MALE EXCAVATIONS Al LEAST THEE TIMES AS WIDE AS TIE ROOT BALL DIAMETER AND LESS RANEE TOFNE NOES: DAN TIE WINCE Flom THE TOP MST ROOT N DE ROOT BALL NC THE BOTTOMCF TIE 0.)O) BALL TIE PANTING AREA SHALL BE LOOSENED NO AERATED AT LEAST TIE TO FIVE TEES ENE DIAMETER OF TIE ROOT BAIL BrAO6iLL SKIN: COn95T OF EJOSTIM ON SITE SOIL NO MEIDIENIS SHALL BE USED tstEsSOTKeMAsc SPEOHED 7 TREES SWILL BE RANIFD WITH THE TOP MIST ROOT N TIE ROOF BALL I toy HOER MAN TIE FOAMED LAICSCAPE GRADE DC IAItOES TREES THAT ARE SET CA SLOPES SET ROOT BALL ON aostateen Soo TREESVMCE THE 1RXM FLARE IS NOT KNEE Slit BE MLJECTED W NOT COMPETE RDOTBAL MTH SCA. FORM Sat INTO 7 TO 5' TALL WATERING RFG(SAXER) AROUND RANTIGNEA THIS IS MI NECESSARY W VACATED RAE AREAS APPLY 7 101' DEPTH a SPICSIEO MUt DI INSIDE NATE RING RING 4 SIMINGAND LA2YVGa TREES IS OPIKXIAL N MOST RANTING SITUATIONS IN AREAS CO EXTREME WINDS OR ON STEEP SLOPES S FMINCMAY BE NECESSARY TO S fABIUQ THE TREES STAKiNGANC G JYINO M:St BE REMOVED WIIHN T YEAR OR LESS CF RAN TING GATE 6 TREE WRAP IS NOT LOBE USED ON ANY NEW PLANTNOS EXCEPt IN LATE FALL RANTING SITUATION 6 PRUE Ai DEAD OR DAMAGED WOO)* TER Pin,TING INSTAL SAUCER IN NATIVE AFLEAS TREE PLANTING ON SLOPE SCALE I' • L'1Y SECTION 16) 1(r DA HOES MN Al ALL LON PORTS LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF EDGER AT LOW POINT ENSURE PO51TM DRANK' STEEL EDGER • SCALE 3nr • ''Os 0 FLAYED GRADE TOP OF SOC THATCHLAYER NC TOP OF MULCH OR CRUSHER FINES 51IAL1 BE FLUSH WA 1H TCP GF EC(ER O TURF TWITCH (7% SOL PER O MENLO)AMSPEOFICAIIGOES 0 SUMMER OM STEEL EDGER DRILL 1161 W DA HOLES I' 0 C MN AT Ott LOW FONTS OR POORLY WO NO AREAS IN ORDER TO ENSURE ADEQAITE OFUNAa 0 BOER STAKE NOTES '?ERE SHALL SE PC OP'0SE0 SHARP' MOOED ttXsa 2 0: NTRACTOR SHAI.19dTMl STARES AS RECURS) 3T THE SAN FACTRAER 4' RANTING A EA SHALL BE tMOWED NO AERATED AT LEAST 3105 TIMES THE DA OF ROOT BBL EXSSTINGQUDE 0 0 0 USE GUY ASSEMBLIES FOR 0 EVERGREENS AND TREES OVER YCAL ALLWIRE10 BE +7 GAUGE GALVANISED TOP MOT ROOT N WIBALL ABOVE acts NG GRADE WWI 0 SCE 2r OF OPGAN C MAO. I APPLIED O.ER PLAN Tic AREA NC AWAY 0 FRoM TEE TRUNK O mast. WAIN UNAMEIDE ) T0PSOI FROM+QE O BURLAP ROPE NC WIRE RIMMED FR01F FOP 1/2O WI BALL At MNMIM O SLOPE SDED HOE IS 3 TIMES AS WOE AS THE ROOIBALL DA Oi ROOIBNL SI TING DIRECTLY CAN TOP O UhOSTIRBED SQL 0 SCALE I' • T'U' ROOIMLL SILTING DIRECTLY Cot TOP OF UHKSTuft& 0 SCR 24').3a4' PVC MARKERS (TYPICAL)OVER ARIES TREATED WCXXO PC/it NIA GRWETED NYLON STRAPS USE2OJT AIRES uNFACCEO TOPSOIL ADDED TO EASING GRADE ON DOWN HLL SASE SCALE 1N'•• 7 PRAT ALL DEAD CA DAMMED *ODD PROW TO RANIWIG SET SAL$ ROOT gNi r NOIER THAN FNS' BED OWE \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\` 7X CONTAINER MOTH / SHRUB PLANTING O SRO, EDMjLCN MENDED SOL TA R NTINO13ED O PER SPEQFICATIONS BILL SQL tO A DEPTH OF FADIt INCHES 0 FIN i4 GRADE IIOP G MACHO NOTE • BRQIEN01 OtaGG ROOT EWES WMU M REJECTEC 1 CARE SHOLE0 BE TAKEN NOT TO OAMACE TIE SHRUB OR ROOT BALL WHEN REACHING a FROM ITS CORONER 3 ALL AAIPERS SHOULD BE RANTED SO THE TOP G THE ROOT BALL OCQ1R55 ABOVE THE FLEAS/GRADE Co THE MAGI LAYER 4 DK1 RANT PI TWICE AS WIDE AND NOT AS THE CONINNER PLAN 5 QEM MAX / / tCLEARAVERACE e�!ILOf use ••♦♦ WOW, ON M ARC MO N CHOW LT 101tµ AI 401..1.1114, VERTICAL SANDSTONE BOULDER SCALE I -t7' TC O NAVIN BACON EDGES O 7 DoCL K TALL X 3 LONG LAVEIRA;i1 BUFF SANDS ICE BOLDER (BURY to IN O DUNOI O COMPACTED AIXJEGAIE BASE r DEPTH FOR °RAINAG O MAURI LANDSCAPE Oj COMPACTED SUDORADE VARIES 1101 arty Snug Drew Cann WHOM P 133E 1166 1303 NO ITN .•.. rmANLaV'Iaw Awa ..r. below. CAE sire YAP IM5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE ntilEVES SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE DETAILS L-8 1 2 3 WELD COUNTY NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION I Aei= DEVKOPLK:AIPWIAM)IMIYs,Ea4REVEWSHIM* aMC OR SERVICE EMI OAS 611 ZONE DISTINCT. NE ELY TO DE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STATED: SUN (DEFAMES' OF POLING KNEES, FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT 2 APPROVAL OFNORAM MAY CREME A vESTED PROPERTY Rr...4 PURSLait ID sEcis sseaa OF IN REID COACT CODE. ICEPARTMENT Of FIJAING ROMEO CURETON FRONT RANGELLC , 3. DE AWN OF OPERATION ARE UNwRSAGE!.SEVEN OATS ANEEL,DEPMTYEN1 OF PLAANNO SLWItt3, 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51, KEENESBURG, A THE NEMER OF ONSRE ENPLOTEE5 IS LRCM TO BODEEN AS STATED ON DEAP%tATONIMPARTMENT Of PLANNING PINKEST WELD COUNTY, CO 80643 PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATE 5. THE >ARKMAREA GNTHE SITE ENAL.Et(rRnAfED.Off WESTOrPIMwOREMICE3, PARCEL NOS: 13051900029, 130519100032 L AUSOMAP*U*mLRE I CAUYTi J) MAUL N ONEDM I ANO APPLWCES INC DO MO UE a IA WELD WNW COMJOEFMTENT OF PLAINS ELNvt4S, USR17M0065 ML*CCRK.M2WADI OtcptttS OWIEMf1J10 HEREIN SEE TOMYIAIN AMB,pEYT Of THE OTE *ELSE DEYELOPYFr PLAN AND LSE EH SPECIAL NNE* tittittoneil VWMRDS AS 3lSUMO UNua TM _ DAY O1 7 HE INOSCAP IGHICAlUtS ON ICE ■I silt 4& M IMNtAMO N WAC ACCOAE MD THE APPROVED WOFWQ€SC U EIO.DEPARTMEY7 of P,AII•C KRVCEI, of OWNERS: OWALMS: I ICE URNAM AMLLLAMM. MN DE AP PROVED LOT* Pow 9OVTIED To 1:E 0NM1II IAN tTOMATS M:t 5 . Mewl WENT PLANS if RVLe Si SLOAN, JAMES A IRLf51 MAYWMD, IVAN L SLOAN, GEMLDENIM INWFARD. OET7V1 :0 TRITON THE°ROP(RTY ONO OR OPEOTOR ALL.RQVTRITON EVDES Or AY AN•OVM EIRIOINO ACTION AND STY THAN ON OR NS&& INS LIN or me OMEN OAR MEDay PLANTING yyy IL* 7KMIUPI REPRESCNIATNE8 FOR TIE FIE OEIRICTMt'ME WELD CONDOMS OF t1EMD{Y STAMM TOTE DEMNTWENT OF S MvCES ID*PARMHO O PLMNVD UNICEDI SEC. 16 SEC. 17 I OWNER: III µL t1O.W AND SRO WASIES FAS OEFNK•NT4SCD NAMESO•PCµ RTES NO FACUTER ACT NStOIXRDRL3 CRS. SHUL_ILS'aED AND REMOVED FOR FNN DISPOSAL NA WANE* TM1 COOK, MOTEC MADANIS' SOFACE AM) GPLJCWATERCON-AIWtOI,(DEPARTMENT Or PYNC HEALTH NC ENVIONENT, OWNERS: '' YO PWMyEHR Sam of WA31F5 5ML_ LE PENI■tTW Al TNISNR. 11C N NO' IEFNT 10 NOM TRHO6E WASTES SPEH?ILNLY EJ(OIOED TROY TUN OUHIUACF A SILO WASTE N THE sat I STEWART, THOMAS JOHN I sTCWART. MINOT GEORGE TRENT WCR 20 PLANNINGCOMMISIONCERTIFICATION WASTES 0CSµsITESAMC"CLDE3Act.SECTMa,30dT•Im5.CSSDEPARTEV1ofPUtLCHEANMAMCENARUN1LNIi liI--444 - — — OWNER: BROWNING. U401 ■SEE ---- • • 32 WASTE RONCE DO BE TWISTER STORED AI* INEWS[ONAMVKERTHAT ONaTMERR PUBLIC hALD NDNatoTEL 6,MC GTIEN POTLNMLrNISAACECGNgtK7lb. THE FAOLITY NW, OPERATE N AHS.ORWM[i ND GRAFTER 14 MICE I DE DE WELD COMMIE CGOE T0EPAADMENT OF PUBIC rtµM NC EJ**CAJENt • S(EREWY EEC011MENC TO THE MCA AAEADEIENI TI TO CERTIFY THAT TUN WELD COMOCOLORADO PLANING 0(ADODON 11 FUGITIVE DUST VMOULDATIEAPI TOSS COUNTED ON THE PROPERTY.LEES CAT 14 PROPERTY PCA0 COP_.Wi'MYECOLORADO W RMIJ1YCOER6910NS AN °SAUDY REGJUMCWSOUNTI TNT Of PWI1C!F14LM AlO EMWaAENt I 41 • N • • ■ • H� ■ PIS-MOAXPI 6yRD OF C,A.wttC •w'�w 4A5'AFICCQAItt C0.0NA00.rCAfF5 c0IFMAtON, APPRWA: ALOADOIIKY11M65RE SO SPECItC OCHETOPUEA: HAW MD LAE Fr SPECML REVIEW AS SHA3WN AND OERCRW) THEREON TIC DAv OF P OWNER: RTES. BARBARA _ %.• • I OWNER: ai . 3A THE APPLICANT OWL NSW M M PaLUl10NSACSON HOME LA EN4 APO EMC5fl PEST A? 1 TW AND ODDIN A PERMS FROM ME M POttUTIONCONTPQ DNMON. COLORADO 3tKoHLEAT OF oar MEAL IN NO NMMTE4 MOI AS AP%CMMSC [DEPARTMENT DP C HEN M El AND 1vPOMEr, 15 ADEQUATE DINIMAM FWHOWAEr1S ANO TOUT FACADES NWT SE PRaVCEo FOR EWtOYEES NO PATRON Of 'If PAWT. At AU TIES AS EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORSME CM SITE FOR LOSS OWNERS: — UENNING, SHERRIE L DINNING. SOBER'C MLR LLC ti. `3Li t ..I 1 t • I • ■ n I CRAM WELDCOUNTY %AIINV0Cq■C5Oh MN CONUECUME VIPS AOM Pa WANE Ta E75 ANO 601TLEI WAIN ARE ACCEPTABLE RECORDS of YWRNNAE POTION' MAMA DEMON FOOT PON' !DEEM K POLL ROAMED ORA QUARTERLY RASE AND OMANEGA NEVI* SYTI(WELD COUA'1' OEPMTYEAI OF PANE HEAL IN MC EWNOIREMI,POAIANE TOUTS SWt SE 6ERYCEDIV A CLEANER LICENSED NWLDCRMY AND PALL COWAN HNCMI4TWRA SPMIMENIOFPW.C HEAL THAICNVEm1MEr1 — OWNER: JOHNSON, VIRGINH • I I I NORTH or .la I • • • II MJSI COYPU YAIHALL PAUVDLMof LCWN DOW RAT*P IUIMMIE WASTIWARA TIISAIMEN15YNRW.APERMNEYI AIIEaAR LU,ATEO1*THEaroR • • RIlW"APPLYIW CPDLTY RSOOF Mt WATER "APPLY YWILKPRpva:3 FOAL L•RMW MD SANITARY RNPOpCb (WPMDKXIOf MILK NN IN MDfAVRfAEEM1i RV RV I _QWtR RICHARD ,'1CC • BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION TI ALL pTEA'MUY HMAApaq PEAAGl1 LI.SRE ST IN HYOID 111 WE WSW MACCOAOANCC Dr', *cow 'tAMLYO. ALL C,tMCAIS may K S10Rf) scan ON ma wows* RMAL[ AMC pi ACCORDANCE wilt WNUFACTTER 6 ATCOMEFdTW,{. •DEPARTMENT Of MC ZEAL MAO FNVROWNR� ! *COWAN, CaRAMEID•OLL SE CONETRJCTED NOUN] TAWS TO PROVIDE CCNDANANNT FOR M LARGEST actE MARK MO SLOVENE FREEM)AO TO COALMAN P*CPITAIOIL SECONDARY CWIAI4E*f/MVL 6E AFMCEMIY NOTONKO To Corium W PLOD OR RELEARO WDEAML KC(MONY CONIANAENIONICER SAD BE►4PECTEL AT REGULAR STERNS AND NMTANEDN K I AOBERTSON. HEII U OWNERS: JACKSON. ■OEBIE LYNN 1 JACKSON. lU5?1NK \ l 1 OWNERS I RAEDENE. SAL LL OWN( R: 3 BELL. I MARY FLLEA 1•C IS 10CEN Ire THAT THE IOM) O COAYCOMtMSOIERS WELD COWTY COLOAA:KI DOH HERESY CONFIRM NC ADOPT TIERS .FAIDLENTOF TIE SIR SPECK GEVUOFMEM PLAN NO USE SY SPERLI RESEW WYEtIT1ENT STANDARDS AS P10WMAFO DEDCREFD HEREON iN6 DAY or I� GOO CUMOI: UV. AL. EECCISIT! CONTAINMENT W{L COMITY MM THE CU_r1MD001l MO GI CiJALFAVAION IGGO00i CONSTAR RU.L5 MIOVR TIE PWVNATE OF TIE STATE IADERf�IWDND MOVE SWAPO STORAGE TAM REGVUIMAM. ITEEM OF aVINX •E*LM ISW D AMC EIANRa, II AS AMICABLE AEPLL PAEVDITDI CONIC. AID WUMIERYEASUC PLAN PREPARED N ACCORDANCE MM THE APPLIAMIE PIANISM OF FRCIR. SHE SHALL K AYAAARE ,W➢A41(ENT OF �--II JACKSON, ROBBIE OWNERS:LYNN JACKSON, JUSTIN K M\ •� ANC aEALM MC UMROMEVT, SEC. 10 OAR. BONO Of COUNTY CAM69OAERS J9 TIE;MUD Pvl SE cON5TgiCTEDAfO DR -RATED TO FAb14E THAT CCNtAAE4t1aN OF Sot AID GAOJOWATEA ODES mot cC0l. 1DEPM11EN1 of wpm sot AMO EfNR01YD1f) SEC.'S I�W WCR 18 r ATTEST: ANY GONUVNATED SOILS ON THE FACILITY 54µt K REMOVED. TREATED CR SPED Of IT.ACADRONCE ANTI Au APRCANE RU.ESAAO REGULATKRC ALL SPU. T DUBE REPORTED TO LOCAL S'AR MO FEDERAL AGENCIES N ACCORDANCE MN ALL STATE Alt FEDERAL REQAASTS 40ATTI U4i Cl PUBIC ,EALTHAND ONIAT PENH I L T WELL COURT DSO TO THE BOARD a TK FAWh Set AOHfM TO M NMNWM PERYISSKE KELE -AEVILA AisOLWO M M RE DEVTW HARE A/ ODITMTPD P.4171WGAd.IWPM'YfNT Cf NNE HEALTH MO EN.TIICA.LENt, VICINITY MAP or WED* :3 TIEM'RCMI WC ORTAW ACOLORADO MORRO' KNIT SYSTEM OR COPS PEPS Hs THE Ca0RA0D%PANSEA IT OF PURTEACH E ANSI EWNOMAINT ICON') WATER OW111Y =mot HMBON AS MRCVIIE. ICEPARTNFNT 0' PUNJO •HEAL M H NO ENOWENI, DEPUTY CLERK TO TIE BOON N THE FACim LW.I.NORVTHL COUNTY OFNrIREVOCATION AlO0A 11APE/610Nq JAY EAT! ISSUED POW II:fFN11ENT 0l R/RL; ZEAL TN AIDEMNQYENF, M MNCANI POLL WRY IRE COWS NON RCS OF ATVC:OWOLACE ADYE0RY OR OTHER NOME OF IDACOEtwcE OF A STATE BSNS PERMIT AND Of T14 OUTCOME OR OPPOSITION O ANY SHEET INDEX - .7 SVC" COMAUAICE ADWORY OR OILIER NOTICE Or'S OWIIICE IOUPMNENT OE NOR NAT TIT ANO EISN1(M EK?. CUR •-Cr .QOI -.Mt V4 sMFt I A NEOPERADSPAMCOOLYWTNAILAnLICANERAESMOAERAATOA50FSTATEAWPInMAGBCESMOOWWILDCaMncOOL XPAR?W'ITorKIWC,EALTHNoENTNONIE%T. CUM, 1(T/ t7VInAL, SDI PIA,. DEVELOPERIOWNER CIVIL ENGINEER SURVEYOR -,:I IT IM4TROPER?Y SIP EMU CONTROL NODM VEECE ON IRE SITE. IOENIRANNT OF PINE IMOI$J l../y'-,E LOA Pt ::i pi AN CURETON FRONT RANGE. L LC SAMUEL ENGINEERING LW SURVEY COMPANY SIB I7TN STREET, STE. 650 RASO EA CRESCENT PKWY, STE 110 11345 W ALAMEDA PARKWAY, SUITE 205 is THE AcctN ILO THE IMF SNAG Et SWAM °TU WILATE ANY *PAC t[TO TIE PMLC FEW) EKLWMi OAMMIFSMDOE OFFER TRACING. 'WAR TEE MT OF ASS( WOWS •DENVER, CO 80202 GREENWOOD VILLAGE. CO 50111 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 10221 19 (HERE SHALL K NOPARMNG OR STAGING O VEIHCLES ON RAtl ROADS San PASO SIRE CRAZED ICEPARtIENT Of PUS WORN% (720:3910555 (303)714.484C (303) 658-C35B 37 ANY WpK TINTIMY COOLY AND OR ENCRDAOILION MIYCSTY RIfyRSCf-WAY a EASEMENT Wu AORE(E AM APPROVED RGNLOFAVAYUSE PERMIT PRIOR TO CDWAEACEMEIR, igFMILENTOR CONTACT: DALE NIXJSE. VP OPERATIONS CONTACT: MARK A. SKEISKE�', P.E. CONTACT: MARX A. HALL. PLS WELD COUNTY NOTES -CONTINUED SEC WOES I' THE.5TOPN'AL RDA PATTERNSNC RJDFF AMINO ON 14 WE WILL N NIOMEDA IDEPMTMENT OF PUBIC MORAY, O WELD COLONS RIGHT TO FARMWEED COUNTY IS ONE CS THE MOST PROOUCTME AORCATURAL COMM N THE OWED STATES TYPCAt_Y RANKING II 114 TOP TEN CO A:MON DE COMVTRY N TOTAL WANT VALUE OF AGRICIAIUAAL PRODUCTS SOW. TIE RURAL AREAS CF VELD CCLAITY WAY SE (YEN 32 WELD COJIW 5 MOT RE5POSILE FOR ME WNTNMMCE OF UN4RE DRAINAGE RELATEDFEATURES. IDEPAA TEAT OF EtAYK WORK% Alt PAWS Slit 1IEY ARE ITFIENELY USED FOR AGRESTURE PERMS AIRING SODA WAN AREA MIS' RED:lain AVG ACCEPT DERE ARE ORANIACILt scumsCORRECTS WITH LOINT6TNCIS AGES. TURN PRACTICES MCA LIMED LEVEL OF SPOKES TSAR N 'OVM. ALOIS MTN 71E M ACCESSNU IC*OMINMWAIED CON.TY NIaDAOFAWY AND WMRTJ..NCE CF DIE RO 4T mAV TM- VOTSE M Ss.ON5EILJTY OF WELD COUCH, IDEFAATIEM a PLANNING PRAM - °RANSlds CONE i•tWON INS WICH ATTRACT NUM OK UM ILL RELOCATE TO RURAL ACAS: OPEN YEWS. SPACtIStSS, WUUE LACA OF ENGINES CITY NOR AM CONGESTION NO TIE RUM ATMO5%EAE MO YMT Of LYE *TOUT NOaEO•E FARE. SCSI FEATOEs1YHCM ATTRACT OMAN DWELLERS TO RIML WELD CGUYTY WOIAD pCCK,Y K GORE FORLVER N MAUSOF UONI SURE PERDU, 60 HOTREAMS OR RAM Cr LOUT WU Kit PEE ORECISY 03410 ADJACENT PIGPERTE4 SS" OF1*41 W01A0 MDT CAUSE A NICAKE a N'ERFFNE WALT A{NCafN1Al LOON OF TE IMO POIRDM7fEEnEC7FD TO CANOE INFER LONDEIfA1lEfE0 AORKXLIWAL PRACTICES MOACCOMIDDIR NE NE AE ON TIE ADMCEMf PNOPERIES N ACCORDANCE M IM MO. NODES TIE DOLL I MON REPLECIEO Lan FROM NA LIDO SOURCE MAY CREATE A TRAFTC la) TO OPERATORS a MOTOR MRISEWOF MASON OWLS INTO AIDIARCEIW AREA WELTED4* LOMS4IlfiMND AINCUIIAAL'IMPACTSICES TOACCOMENOY EUFtaFMRcaNwATE STEWS gWafOUfMlWrKMKOWfCMWYKCWFLEtOWnH01 ONSiRLFDAN RAPFtCRRLRWYtuIgPMiMENIaRAMMA:SEPVtT61 TRACTOR APOEOUPYENIADNIIO'INGFARM SCLOONw1* ACt UPFROM ANNA. FOEHEW NORM IWLVUTAltOMYLLROWaoa 35 SMDMD MINN KOSERERNAWD.KAMCTON AR.F.IfOTDe El000wrvccOELLNRUNTYMEWURVNONNE WOAOWTEDnIELOCOMW:muSTY*AJFNM,COWS.axe FROM NMMLCOSEMINI.6LAGEMOWMNF:IWWEFROY;1ITCNNNHO:FL*SMCYgONTOIRHNANOANTEAMNGACTMRES:SOOTNG ABBREVIATIONS EXHiBIT /` _.__ IMPARTS MIS CDOE AMC aNRAMML ELLCTRCAL COOL A 6MONG PEAYC AFOOD:OA ST R COME TED AM) IWO(4 COMM KR OF ENONLEAED RMS KAONO NE Ott SIAM SPORTS LEGAL MEDN OF MOOR S Rt01PE MOVE ME Of PESTCIDESND PSTILES M GE FIID6. NCl1OLC TIE ME OF ANAL SPRANG n 814 BOTTOM JRACOLORADO Lt6ETEAED morns 011WOES ST K DAWNED ION RO[W.A OCORONCAL OCINVERNORP0*t PWUOMEOSYACODAAW nsatrE1EO FTSTECN POLL K NEOJMED ISCOWY0A PMSTU FOR A0DCIATURALM00KN1[ TO WILDLMACGAtIATONCO AOiUETURAL WWERV AFO SVPRES 10 UNIT N DE71 OR ANOPEL101 P1LlECTIOI( IDHARTEAe OF NEOIC I4PECTOH4 AOSCIAIuw OPENATOS A COCIMTRATEN O ERcnw40VEAOR aws MATS! DFnN PRODUCES Ayala WORN KONEN AURAL CENTERLINE NCO M AREAS or TUN COWIN. SECTIONS-4PC CAL PROVOER THAT M AWOL ROLL OPERATES SA MOT K ISO TO K A PSCa E EASTING S. To PROPERTY OMER a OPERATOR SWLLRE AEDSAaMLE FOP COSMYMOwin. THE DES AMC OPERATION PASO; OF CHAPTER a OF T•E WEND COMM COOf_ PRNATE*KAICE P THE ACACIA.1URM OPERATION µUEOEDMI* A IW4n4 WIWI'iEDOD60R PRACICES 1107 AK COME1AY 04 EL ELEVATION f4� AEANDLIItY ASSOCIATED VIM AAiCV.TURM PRGRCtEAL HP HIGH POINT La 3f NECESSARY PERSONNEL FROM NE NED COUNTY OEPAATONR OF %A.0*.G SEANCEL PAX WOWS NC Pals MEµ`ND$AMOIAEN'61WL■t0*1117O ACCESS ONTO THE PROPSRIY Al AM WA'EII TEN AEON MO COIIMIRE TO SE 115 LIFELINE FOR DE AIAtNtINµ Ct1WNTY R■tMFALb7C TO ASSISI THAT DITCHES MO LP LOW POINT �l KisSONIIE TARN ORDER ToENSURE THE ACTATES CARVED Wt ON THE PROPERTY COMPLY MAR 114 C0'MTOMSOF APPAOVM NO DEVELOPMENT STA/OAAIS S7ATEO'EDEN AND ALL APPISARLE M5ERTEN MI MOCartMOES TOE GFTE WAY' ORESIDENTIAL THEAIJDEVEIOPMENT IWENMOVNGTOINE TO ASST IO'ATDITCEATT SMO WEtDCO-NIY REGULATION RIS MID MP MID POINT l - REDCOATS ST RPALQE TNT CANNOT TAKE WATER FROY PREATCN D1ICTES.IASES. OR OTHER STREC1LAES LNLE.SS TEY HAVE ANADAANCATED 10. THE .6E ■r SPEGMLNUE 5wuEltR:K1EO RO IE16Y THE Hp1FGOM RIGHT TD THE RATER. N NORTHING ML A%vABLE WELD COJFTrrE01NA7D(b.SwsLNIML PC POINT OF CURVATURE SKINTONSTAT SS A*5REWIRE //--�� ! "1 OR $,ASS . RE 145IANDAAD5,Nr PENS 6Y Tit WQDOWNT'60M00f CgMW WELD COJRYC0YBL4ALAM MFAOAPPpo%REAR:Y F'aNTT1pUSANDI CO'SOUMEElE5N9lff (iW10E THE 665OF THE STAR pF OE(AWM£I PCC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE tIlV4E5 FROM llE PU111aCMctwDEMONISTS'MOAA0S. 05 lELNaS7ATED CARD AREPETIME APPROVµOERChUtE1BJ10E DE OOMIMSNIER5 BEFORE SUCHI CIWICiS CAGY If PLANS a OE,.ELOPIEATSTAFF31RD6AK PFRNAfRD.MYDiNfA CN1NGfS Ewa B'e REDNTIN 0FFCE OF 711E 0LPM7YEM OF %AMNG5FAVCE6 wry WORE TNN THEE GOWNED SEVEN HOSED .176% MIES OF STATE ATO COUNTY ROADS OfTSDE CF NWCPALIIES 115 PEER MMJRICE OF PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE 39 IRE FACILITY SMALL NOTTY TIE COUNTY OF AN REVOCATOtAADOR WSPEJGON CF Al.? EPA NPAO PERMIT (DEPARTMENT OF PUNS HEALTH NO ENVIRONMENT) TIE RADA TO K SEAWO STETCIES AVASASLE RFWn•FiS. LAW ENFORCEMENT E LIMO ON RESPONSES 10 COMPLAIN TS MORE DMA 011 PATRa5OF PI POINT OF INTERSECTION THE COUNTY Alt 'HE CCTANCES WINCH MET K TRAVELED WY DELAY ML EMERGENCY RESPONSES. NUIIOID TAW EJ6ORCHEAT AWAMCE AMC PT POINT OF TANGENCY 10 NNE APPLICANT PULL IIO:■Y THE COWTY ins RECEIPT OA ANY CONDUCE SWORE aOTHER NOME OF NaeCOWLMACE O M A STATE ISSUED PENNI. C Of Wittig a E Wittig 00POSRDP OF MN FIRE FRE PROMOS SW PROVIDED W VCW.'EERSYRCM.S7 LEAVE TIER LOS Alt FARMS TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES M S. COB ACT CONRIMCE ADv161WY OR ODER NOME Of NOFMOIPUCE.(DEPARTMENT OF MALE WA -MAW EWNOPYEWC ORAVELSUALV'. NO MATTER Hu* OFTEN TEY ARE SRO SNOT PROM THE SAME ONO Of SIAMAC! EJOEOItO MOM A PAVED *4110. SNOW ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY RENMA POORI1ES WAN TNT ROADS PRO 5NWIYCNS TO MTEMALE WY NUN REARED FOR SISAL OATS MIN A IATFKN SNOWSTORM 4' TIE"ROPfAN OS OR OPERATOR PULL K AEBfC.A'SE,E FOPCOWLyp4WM ALL GI M FOREODM DEVELOPSEM STMOARO%No(OLRMKf ram my or'HE IONEoOIC OFV130PMEM SAUCES N RURAL AREAS N UANY Emu sec AST SE EGNµENT TO MRCPµ SFRv1CUS RJW DWELLERS MUST W FELESSON. It MORE 6TAMOAN4 WY K IWAIW Fa *WEANS a TIE POMP W OK NSW OF CWITYCOICIIOH'RC. IMPARTMENT Or MALL REM T4 AND ENV*a OENfi SELINITt*NT TARN ,ARAN DWELLERS. N RK HT TO EX TRACI WARM AENTAICIASTATEMENT W610 COWRY NW ROME CS THE MOST ANACMI INERAL RUOLOCE5 'OOLONG BUT NOT LOMED TO. SAND NO GRAVEL a. NATURAL Lai NO % L AM EWPaU010DP FENNY HALMOS NILE CANT. NENAN UIAN a NOUNS SUNG. FRAM E01NlENi MO OS HELD FOPS COAL WIDER TRUE$W iK COLORADO REVISED ITA'UTES NEPALI AMVRMRLNKNCE5 WANE W THE STATE % COWIERaT MUONDEPUNRAM ESSENTIAL TO TIE STATE'S EUINUMY:AN THE PESOSMt PRIM TEN O1CrtlELCCTRCµ HOMO FOR MS Ant CEVRAPWTOP RATE NOM fPEEDINIAIC NIVIDMLNS P%IC 1134E YNLN SOMAS CWITESO ILK STATE Ma A CMTCAL OMIAW C511CMC GNR;NO C SUCHWlf OrTMOULDRIITRACIEDAL=COG IC A MAT INSPWJ GIGaATID 10 AVOO WASTE 01 EM40L FAN XJGS MD LAW= NO 0/81WO•G PNESfNI PLATT DREAM ITAT LIIOCI ONION IS AC TWO IS 6HORTANI.NOT 9143 AJCM DEPGMtB AND CS M LEAP PRACTZASLE DORU/tON W M CCaCGYAN000Al1M1 G VIE O 11! MUDS G TUN PNLIa JS COUTURE O IN 5'A11 TOR 9411 WWI II out ALSO FOR TIE MINION Of 1HE FMLERs tMtM000 SPAS Rg01NCE LOCA1ON6 ARE 110ESPIEAD TNaMC11T THE COUNTY AND PERSON MOVIO 14014W ARMREST RECOOMIE TIC MOM &PAC% ASEICMRO WINS NC OEVELOPHENT AKIOINCE ..- ]V� 811 IlmosWR6 Mims OFTEN 11(1.14015 SITU ARE TRW TO DES OIOOAMIE'AL ma DEO NTICAL LOCATION. WINOS TS RENKAICCI A E PROTECTED PHCAFRN REINS Alt PERM OWMER6 Douai BE MafI FEO THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTRACT TE WOW RESOURCE Coll bean LAS IH,....�-N ,.r.N'..N A..!Inure .d *ants by Er...Cq...N'Q. fw .e ww.. WIN, .t V- w...Is H.A..e... Yalu`''+ 'A ' Lana P\ATV. ..s tar nun.. H -AY lob. Y ors.•IY,,. LEE_..wa l Ott>veNP ..."y"w W� :" r- .YOU UMwnLAr Aw .A tia' """ N.iS. "+ ..••T CURETON MIDST REAM ® CURET0N IIIINERIRCRM II�PRRICfEWi LRTEG,/I�YP9I >. .L., WELD COUNTY, CO 'ItlE DRVCEC NUMBER [nsIsKEY 02/06/2018 CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT CIVIL COVER SHEET 17227 ... caT. KILLEN 02/0&2018 DRAWING NUMBER nA5 SP in1. A ISSUED F104 USR 02T 19/16 MA t' M. SKft5Kfl' OL06/201e ® Samuel Engineering Woo Pre Ha. aw.SM . P. L Il Cy ':d * � Y? �' ._ au-. PA w>.m CURT -CE -001 WA A 0.EFEREN CF. DRAWINGS REVISIONS REVISIONS .M•.'s. saw .ob.v,P....w,E.aYa: T-.,A.aw„F FPO tY..TT.oca VANS CUIPI I' To u3 rII AWE B C D I E I F I G H 1 2 c 444 ti8 Si N 92000 8 m N W I O O SI S m m .+ N W PROPERTY W CORNER O O o m a +• +++ W I W EXIST. WELD O e W CR 20 WELD !M W COUNTY O e in W USR17-0065 O m c vt W OWNER: O O a{ ,n N •i" PROPERTY ++1 W CORNER W N 91 940 39 0 9 N W a ,n N W O �, ,n in W I p I O o a W O n ID w OWNER: FRONT RANGE RESOURCES I C OWNER: N 91 915.54 (COUNTY UNMAINTAINED) COOK, GEORGE TRENT �, E 54 914.01 EXl NG WELD CR 20 STEWART, THOMAS JOHN __ �--' • M��A••� .. 1 E 53'279.18 ___ �• - . •Ham• ••• •.N��•• •..I N91800 ...7- -- •••• _ I t$! %— I I I EXISTING o OWNER: 1 OWNER: EXISTING I C _ in PROPERTY CORNER HAYWARD, IVAN I "—� NORTH BROWNING, CAROL 1 / C.,.% In4 I —rc3 — \ — _ • Al 91 615.47 5 aD \ a EXISTING m E 54 921.50 PROPERTY 9 1 EuOei ► v 9SU\ I WELLPAD I vlf, 1000.03 N.68°7'45'E CORNER SGLE r.+SO' N 91600 ~A EXISTING FENCE 7 N 91 630.67 = _ _ — — _ _ I • Li • I E 55 921.41 OWNER: t.°. LEGEND SLOAN, N 91400 JAMES A TRUST ria•• EXISTING 72.328 ACRE LOT I I v'o. �� °\ .p 4. • I i — 4925^- MAJOR CONTOUR (EXISTING) f r D EXISTING ACCESS ROAD EXISTING OVERHEAD i "pp 77 PROPOSED LOT B I--.— POWERLINES ' I I • •••a PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE - - - N 91200 — - - . •4 - = e AMENDMENT 44.24 � TO RE -3190 ACRES v O I I �E• HENRY TO REMAIN DURING LYN IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION UNDIU DITCH K PROPERTY CORNER • e - L ' I I • • - - - - -- ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE SECTION LINE et \ \ STORMWATER DETENTION PONDS N 91 100.00 - • is SITE BOUNDARY/PROPERTY LINE II DESIGN NO BUIt VOLUME • 1.98 AREA ACRE FEET E 55 937.63 •• • PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY/PROPERTY LINE 0/STORAGE - I. t �� DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW '6 .03' N89:11'• to E- ,+ ~— ' ..... •'� �i 1 PROPOSED 80' ' t -_ RIGHT-OF-WAY iiii, TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW N 91000 PROPOSED II • _' . LOT B ` y-• _ I RIGHT-OF-WAY _ — ._. _ EASEMENT LINE OWNER: CORNER ��- RIES. BARBARA N 91 062.55 / ( PROP. 7' CI-IAINLINK Af I .x • E 53 297.55 EXISTING TOP j / I SECURITY FLARE --•-• FENCE `'. 111 ! '"'• ` I NOTES N 90800 WATERBODY y , ' L ' 1O•' Si( o._ 1 \ 1 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE I I I / SWALE �, I v Q✓ f , �.� . • + ' OWNER: g BOER LLC C m 1, THE CURETON FRONT RANGt GAS PLANT IS LOCATED IN LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION 1AMRECX18-02-3190 AND LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION 1AMRECXI8-04-3799; LOCATED IN PART OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 02 NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST, OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY COLORADO. _. - ° • 1C N 90600 2637,03' 9ti'll'1Q'W _ _ — _ - - - -1 — - - —' \ Uf 2. THE SITE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THIS PROJECT WAS PREPARED BY LW SURVEY. IN 2017. �' r.�, PROPOSED .. PROPOSED 1,07 A , i I r {. ,•Fi HEATE0.S' I '�. I -1 -4* THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON COLORADO STATE PLANE COORDINATES, NAD 83 (2011), VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD 88. • LOT A CORNER ��E CORNER 90 1 EXISTING A TANK WELLPAD BATTERY I CC F • • . F •≥ m • _ 5 • 3. OFF SITE PIPING AND PIPING CONNECTIONS TO THE FACII ITY DESIGNED BY OTHERS. m N 90 598.76 54 - I I �I� MCC I 9 4. SOIL INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND ON DRAWING CURICE-104. N 90400 ._---1 E 53 307.54 HENRY LYN IRRIGATION 1 I •••••��•• • G1 OWNER: wCONUONcid vy )SO7.0I DITCH TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING ,� •_ :• vl 5. LANDSCAPING DESIGN FD0. THE PROJECT BY NORRIS DESIGN. 9EXISTING PUMPS I 4 :!ENNING, ROBERT G dI WATERBOD TOI N I I CRYO •�({ a a� I' �`� 6. THE PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 10 33.5 ACRES. N 90200 U, \ PROP. SECURITY T CHAINUNK FENCE .I� 1 -v-ti DEW( SEPARATOR I v �� PLANT LIGHTING DOWNCAST WILL BE - & SHIELDED, PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS NI la PROPOSED AMENDMENT (22.15 ACRES) LOTA _ TO RE -3799 \ }N op EXISTING LOT B O 4;.)+ I I +'U STABILIZER ,t I I ,� �� i 1 _ -�-.._ MfR COMPRES• SORS PROPOSED LAYDOWN I (4 ' o YARD ACRES; . { I ' /' P_a �- . . I �I LOCATION TO PROPOSED 1)00 FIELD BE DETERMINED SF SANITARY 1, SITE GRADING WILL BE PERFORMED NO CLOSER THAN 5 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE 90000 ' - RE -3799 - •6�' vy T i,t LEACH AND 1000 GAL TANK N ! ' --' 'I, _ ( •2s. 1 a (71.95 ACRES) _ _ _ _ _ - — • • —• % \ — y I c• 7 ❑ ( i. .A•, i J E I� CONTROL ROOM 'p �a PROPOSED B A R r I '• �� EMPLOYEE PARKING - 12 SPACES 410.55' N88'45'SB'E a `I LOT RE -3799 LAUNCHERS + ISLUG CATCHER I� 11�1 - - �A I PROPERTY (84.71 ACRES) \ { � ..-- • 1 4 CUBIC YARD TRASH BIN N x98-0 980 CORNER J•� PROPER - II, ., . , DRAIN TANK -� I (ENCLOSED WOOD FENCE) / CORNER 41� 1, - - - - N 89 864.04 JJJ N 89 872.88 - ' _ 1 323.3/ I PROP, PROJECT SIGN t 53 E 53 733.82 PROPOSED IRRIGATION POND • 11�' \ . ENTRANCE/EXIT TO/FROM PLANT OWNER:; PROPOSED BUSTING + - \ + 1 ACCESS PERMIT NO. AP17-xxx ROBERTSON, RICHARD I LOT A l I FENCE I NGL STORAGE N 89600 CORNER 2. ,g J 7 I r .. SITE ENTRANCE GATE IS 120'+ -, OWNER: 8537 COUNTY ROAD KEENESBURG, 51 CO N 89 321.82 I o • FROM EDGE OF GRAVEL JOHNSON, VIRGIL H 80643.9618 E 54 085.01 I �� • ` PROPERTY a •—•.- EI. 1 EXISTING LOT A k CORNER \ , ' c • PROPOSED TWO-WAY TRAFFIC "_ ' N 89400 RE -3799 AJ N 69 317.36 Y . - y• EQUATION - COORDINATES (6.24 ACRES) E 53 745.79 r IA '99 •1 • _��...�-�- -_-.....� NOR THINNA G COORDINATES-_:, `:' - - - .� - .. .. _- JP- AND TO ALL N 89200 ..---__- '-^"_"-- OWNER '-_�_ OWNER: ��- PROPERTY CORNER N 89 332.27 PROPERTY CORNER EXISTING 1319.29' DRIVE L OWNER: 589.14'40 DO NOT DISTURB W PROPERTY /1 CORNER N 89 316.84 I OWNER: 3.200,000 FASTING COORDINATES. Pas1�W 486YM EXAMPLE: 6risa}FFa N 67000 . N 1267000 N 89 302.27 fJ/ F F JACKSON, JUSTIN K F 1 I JACKSON BOBBIE LYNN E 54.869.60 E 54 869.99 ASHLEY, JOHN R E 55 974.69 I BELL, MARY ` ELLEN E 11500 • E 3211500 Preliminary Not For Construction u•. ••mot Waal., •..Pw.•+i..•.•r P MAS MAS 0 ISSUED 'DR USA 02/19/1! NAM o,. I. - 150 -, nin,, CI Ir1LT0A1 CURETON MIDSTREAM vUvl+�C. �, II'' miosTp[A84 I�BYO RL7T1 .v w. WELD COUNTY. CO TITLE 'ROJECT NUMBER CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT CIVIL GENERAL OVERALL SITE PLAN 17227 F..+1 EHF+••q'SE, .n y.w..44 O.M.YCa•,l BP MAS MAS C ISSUED FOR BID 01 29/11 TMM vn:•. M. SKELSKEY Itv26/29:7 w•...• .4. ...M..•M ,A, -•.- °"k'•••'•""SWOOP BP HAS MAS B ISSUED FOR BID 01/29/16 TM,, an.. T. HILLEN 10/26/2017 DRAWING NUMBS+ ..+.+ M ..,&•- I. o•. .mw ENawl •..+p ac,•q.,. BP MAS MPS A ISSUED FOCI USA 18127/17 Inn cwt. M. SKELSKEY 02/06/2318 Samuel Engineering MyM.aJ•6dulw .. no! so �� peas•. WPV. At..an s lin• Saila r� MO.•MY .eW ..e.u, a. ` e @ ? - T ..� ,:,•u .o. ., .. iI I ., ..•. ... ^, •. ., ora.0 CURL -CE -102 D 3W—,. ' REFERENCE DRAWINGS REVISIONS REVISIDNS •••••••• E'M•Caron Waren.fa700 Mw.p27MMO G•wvm4oLP, CO Si 1 F. )01 nil YOU A B C 0 1 - Ic I I PLOT PLAN FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT I I —r wcR 4_ F - r "�' - WELD COUNTY, COIORAUO I t r— USR 5 .. _ PARCELS: 130519100029,00029. 1!0519100032 I_ I ! SECTION 19 TO2N R64W \ r f -- - I. PROJECT I I' SITE \. I OWNER: I ) OWNER: • OWNER:I STEWART, THOMAS JOHN • COOK, GEORGE 6R0Nl (PARCEL NO. 130518400007) I 44 EXIST. WELD CR 20 5 I I FRONT RANGE RESOURCES LLC ,(PARCEL NO. 7000015; SEC. 24 I SEC. 9 1 Si .' , , (PARCEL NO. t30518000005) _ (COUNTY UNMAINT'A1 T -ED) �—•._051 I I __.�.. - ` N 91800 — — — — ≤ i s.o T4 I -_ o OWNER: 1 NOTES J `- 44, w• 1 T•' OWNER.EXISTING - I _ EXISTING IST HAYWARD. PARCEL IVAN NO. 130519100028) L . wf R •e ...• BROWNING. AROL (PARCEL NO. 130519000017) I .. UNDERGROUND WATER UTILITY ti7a _ N ;OF I 1. PIE GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION SOILS OVER THIS PARCEL ARE AS FOLLOWS: -� • ( I r 9 TT _ v N 91600__-� /4\ MS 1 EXISTING WELLDAD '° �.•.•.ter T J• I 1 �, ¢ � I_ e MAP Z EXISTING FENCE — --—_/ I BDwl.RNLLC MAP UNIT -' I I EX• �Y5T�K5I15 SYMBOL NAME ACRES �-• SLOAN,,),(1(4f,S,A TRUST EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERLINES , (PARCEL NO. 13052000011)• 5 ASGLDN SANDY LRAM 4.4I5E SEC. 3C rb (PARCEL WIZb IOOL1001B) PROPOSED LOT TOTAL — EXISTING ACCESS ROAD 15 COLBY LOAM 22.4 1 `•3tEp5TN SIZE I 44.241 ACRES HENRY LYN IRRIGATION DITCH t� { M OLNEY LOAMY SAND 9.9 1 T V •�— .•' i ■ / TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED 'y ■ 47 OLNEY FINE SANDY LOAM 50.7 —•-�.. N 91200 / I I ) i j _ 79 WELD LOAM 38.6 •1U - STORMWATER DETENTION POND • // DESIGN NO BUILD/STORAGE VOLUME - 1.98 ACRE FEET AREA 2. LANDSCAPE DESIGN BY NORRIS DESIGN. Ki WWIII 1• •_�RICNT • • r • . • �•r • PIPPO PO ED BO' PROPOSED 3. PROPOSED •r • ■ • T d • rROP, 7, CHAINLINK ' HI WILL SE DOWNCAST S SHIELDED, • •WAY LIGHTING WILL BE DOWNCAST 6 SHIELDED,FRONT • -WAY RANGE GAS PLAN7 N 91000 ROPIT PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY/PROPERTY LINE I SECURITY FENCE - •.`i .. i ! III LOCATION TO 8E LOCATION TO SE DETERMINED 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51 : 1 -- •- _ COLORADO KEEN(/20J ,� RIGHT • -WAY 3,4506 1/201.190-4506 0.115, BARBARA __- - 'PARCH NO. N 90800 1)0519000019) EXISTING 72.328 ACRE NO. RE -3190 LOT B II � � � �\ 1 C IN CASE W EMERGENCY CALL: 911 O151RICf: '•UDSON FIRE03) 0 ot (PARCEL 130519100029; RARE • /�1 • • 536-0161ON » Fos EXISTING TOP I WATERBODY PROP SWALE I1 li di , �/, � �\ ` ) � M m 1 z (71, FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT COMPANY EMERGENCY CONTACT STRETCH WEMPEN N 90600 . .37.03 �+y- EXISTING PROPERTY LINE ��• 1 :i 6"'' {{ 2 a (307', BSI -:92a / IA • •' I . N HEATERS 1 AE•I METAL SIGN N 90400 ; •44 "; 1 \ 'I R EXISTING WELLPAD I I� Ujnpq;a»•-: • -Iri, N C I' O O 72 ° p MOUNTED TO W/POLE JJJ TS e OWNER: DENNING, (PARCEL NO. 130519000020) ROBERT G 1 �{ EXISTING . 73.553 I II ACRE d TANK BATTERY • I RE -3799 LOT 47 B I ( CRYO '• •,•: m: 1 OD 1 f PUMPS i \ , + .. A w METAL METAL POLL , N 90200 N tPARCEI NO. 130519_100032) I " N..: 0/11Y -' (6 ` II SEPARATOR `i V '«• 1►� ifrtul. p i •i PROPOSEDen ' ` I STABILIZER �� METER `\` • ,. �I PROPOSED YARD LAYDOWN (4 ACRES) PROPOSED '."• 79 PROPOSED C LOT SIZE TOTAL • 1�"" - ; LOGO SF SANITARY N 9(J000 . LOT SIZE TOTAL Trsi,�ES ; r LEACH FIELD AND 1000 GAL IANK --1 22.154 ACRESco • 84.706 ACRES -a l ��i •• • i� �■■ PROPOSED CONTROL ROOF'I I 410.5S 4111x4 'SB-E ,'■ PROPOSED IRRIGATION POND 6 '- •' • ■ EMPLOYEE PARKING 12 r h tl9tlUG SLUG CATCHER - e„ ' 4 YD OUMPSTER/TRASH • SPACES coot-cnott AREA CONCRETE BASE FOR POLES • • I NGL STORAGE a ■ (ENCLOSED WOOD FENCE) PROJECT SIGN OWNER: { i p ROBERTSON, ,r, o '/ 8 Z. �. ' 4 Ex !STING z. • • PROP. PROJECT SIGN (OR REASONABLE FACSIMILE) h 89600 RICHARD I • FENCE �II ENTRANCE/EXIT TO/FROM PLANT --- ► \ �_....�I�.. J ACCESS PERMIT AP17•KKK OWNER: I (PARCEL NO. 130519100031) q _ , r•JOHNSON. NO. (PENDING) LEGEND VIRGIL H • 8 I • II VEHICLE TRACKING CpHIROt Lx III. BOUNDARY/PROPERTY (PARCEL NO. 130519000021) I • / HENRY LYN IRRIGATION DITCH 1 I, i+ --•. — LINE N 89400 1 • " PROP 7' CHAINUNK N TO REMAIN UNDISIURSEO a/ , �• I, � ....•: ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE • 7 58947'43"W PROPOSED TWO-WAY TRAFFIC 1' SECURITY FENCE , 44- •. _•� PROPOSED FENCE LINE --. ..—• —..— N 89200 - OWNER: j OWNER: _-^-_� •30' 50.4i'70•f 1S 1 i. !. OWNER: • , w NORTH Ill • • am • PROPOSED BOUNDARY/PROPERTY LINE )ACKSON• JUSTIN K (PARCEL NO. JACKSON BOBBIE LYNN NO. 130519000026) ASHLEY, JOHN R OWNER: _ -� DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW BELL, MARY ELLEN �OpL ' • to 1305194000091 0 I 8 (PARCEL 8 8 0 0' o (PARCEL N0. 130519000025) 0 (PARCEL NO. j 0 130520000013) 5u.1 • .140 --+ TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW 8 m o ro mpy ' �p VI S — — — — SOIL CLASSIFICATION LINE J, ,'�'!, J, N N• N N J, us N N V, N H BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION II. W V W W • La W' W • W W W W W W co '•E•.JQAt•. teat 1,{ SWOOP CGAIY COSNSral5 itDCtYft c acc D0tA 4711 C(•/AI MU 'Jr NI ro AWADr•I 4.'•4 in flat Pubwowno ►.IN M014E ST P10. Aire r4tlattMi StaWb 4 •al• MOCIL1alc EQUATION - COORDINATES HAVE BEN. TRUNCATED. A 8� ADD 000811. 200 r0 ALL PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION 00, SWOaGOUT' N S NORTHING COORDINATES MiN101A■{YAa W.U11i QI ELJOMERi11O0NA1•r Ic 10 '4 I•aR•L•IWNi a 1w 1111 Hoc CAVUO7VUO rJA MO UKr SEM ra* O1',SLCOVO011NLaWfASMOM I “II OVA Oa :N•a • -- Too 14Y,Mu.aTh MU Ot WILD CGA+t•RA UNIP•i'Ab MI If•!1•■IOOW1tNa 1011E *Mr AND 3,200,000 TO AU. EASTING COORDINATES. I•••• •••1% Ma inC 7PWIpNM1 AW.Dawu.n LlA•004411.wlu Cl,wr/cuuwDo•tant41AOPAty1 WiliNMu0M01•1* heWI Wit LIELCAVINI RAN N0011F•Mlc•L OM* AS MCA% MD Mann DIM0N us DA. a a MID COUNh Ca 101W mac EXAMPLE: Call Aie■i•Yr1 as N 6)OOp 0 N 1261000 E 11500•E 32'1500 Preliminary MAIMS 110.0401111Iv W1Ep MM,MW min RM•IW COMr40i WYty ct*n ro in owe Not For Construction M. I �. *VW aIS pit. I' • Ha mo. CURETON MIDSTREAM mum p[• lIII{LI� .ao. - WELD COUNTY CO TITLE � P ti: ft_ - Ni,MKEN - iting w•-•4Ma...rw o CURETON FRONT RANGE, LL{ FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT CIVIL GENERAL PLOT PLAN 17227 �•� �"'•• aPr.r. S- ••• ••••• Sp NAST • ISSUEt•rOA NSR 02/19/1 MAS s...• r POLLEN IO/M/2t11 DRAWING NW1•EM Ito -.wen ••••.r.rr •a*WIWI.Mw wV K •IA5 A ISSUED FOR NSA 1[/27/1 - MAS w•••» Samuel Engineering ,_._`.�.. •.. IT 2I ?( T _, .... CUR1-CE-104 B 1,011 ..MS a ... a•. .. - �"�' REFERENCE DRAWINGS �� rl, REVISIONS 1 REVIS iO NS �• +�' "•+^•r'�•. w's ''ta DwrrY vibe alrnt /•...a A I fi I r I .. r - - - - _ - A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1 E I F G H • MATCHLINE N 90300 SEE SHEET CUR1-CE-402 \ \ \ rr I' \ • f \ \ \ •� \ m \. '` • .\ . . . \ . . .1 :;r . - NOTES PROPERTY !o \ \J \ MATC3iUNE N 90 300 E 54 929 \I \ SED. LOGO MATCHUNE / \ I n \ a \ O \ \ \ \ ' �\ \ \ ' \ \ \ �,r o 41 ` \ \ \ I I • • \• \•. . •\• • • • ' .\. . . •, • • • ' \vp \� •♦ri/• ��\ SILT FENCE O •MATCHLINE • I `.r ` '' >11 , � X11 N 90 300E I. SEE SHEET CURI•CE-402 FOR NOTES. ESS 952 \ CLEARING LIMITS 15 1 \ N 90200 \ \ N 90 300 \ E 54 932 IL l.._. Q. \ 1 . \ 1 ' i i�. . \ L \ \ \, • . �\,.,.� \• • • . \ , •' , ' , ' , ' \• _N9030U F SS 914 • \ II MM15' .\'I,,' I I. O MAT I O MATCHLINF 1 \ N 90 300 E55917 , DENOTES HORIZONTAL \ \ \ SCL \ \ m 1 I �. \ \• _ _ \ \ \ , \ V \ - ' \ • • ' • �- •, SILT FENCE N 9C 265 •IIII r-• 1 • - S N. I CLEARING r LIMITS 1� /1�►1 6 VERTICAL CONTROL LBJE (PROFILE GRADE) HENRY LYN IRRIGATION DITCH v I 1 \ \ \•• , N 90 266 q'' • \ \ I E SS 914 ••� TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED ROUGH GRADING GRADING DURING OPERATIONS 1 A I �\ \ • ~ \ •° \ �JQ \• \ ' • • • l` • • , • \• ♦v • .•• E SS 917 CLEARING _ ; \ •\ • • \• •• 1 1 OR 2% v .• timITSN I 1 \ • 1 \ \ . • • \ • • `..t. 86 90 146 � �, I S� 1' 1 • aSF e%y 4(: Jr!S LdC. 90100 1 , • \ \ . .•• •\. •. SILT FENCE •. •1490 fey Q t • E 9N _ %Qr....a.i •��I _ 2300 LT SED. LOGS �`�-�--.- \ �• E SS 4a3 1 e coon cuss BROAD \ le \' . _. \ , • 5 I� BASE COMPACTED 70951E MOISTURE CONDITIONED \ E�♦ �_� \ •� • SILT FENCE I SPO OR RECVCLEO ASPHALT AND • % ♦ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE V I I I 4939 I" .. \ i-' \• — \ \ \ . 4 : • • \ • •. • • \ • •. • I o •- +-•�— ;i l SUSCRADE GEOTEX 250ST (OR EQUAL) PER \ \ 1 1 ; ♦ I c• �- - \ • _ \ l a\ \ \ \ \ \ ••. . \ \• • . \ • • -f l F�ENTCE GEOTECHNICAL SPECIFICATgNS \ \ •; 1. P _ \ \, \ �� • �,�' •1490000 A 0' WIDE ACCESS ROAD 11 \ \ \ \. .,_ ' 'r: SED. I N 89 IOG t tl51 • i �� ♦ ♦ I Ir1/4 \ \ \ • . \• •a.P\ • _ • [ \ . `,. ti ;.� I 1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY gG1E-NONE. 1 Es46sz ; \ \ . . • . •. •. •v.04\• • I EROSION CONTROL LEGEND t %\ .I I LIMITS \ 1 N 69 I 'I SED. LOG 657 N 89 857 4,111"-- • 1 1 \ - \ \ \ I IL ` \ - . _ .. - 1 ., - UMIT5 ® EWA tONLRtlt WA`♦HOUI I1tMPORARYI OF \ ti \ \ I \\ DISTURBANCE \ E S4 850 E 54 932 I ' •4P \ \ i- ® SCL SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (T'EMPORAr. N 899• •_ I \ 1 • I SED. LOG ♦ N 89 820 • �, 1 ~., L!I?c* PERMANENT SEEDING (INCLUDES UNITS 1 \ \ , II 1 N 89 80 \ N , / 4 E SA 763 \ \ _ j ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPED CLEARING E 55 013 + , a`la 0 `» 1• \ -, \ I !'a• 4'41L al 1 i CLEARING LIMITS UNITS 14 89 823 1• - - P • �: IRRIGATION 1 1 \ - \ \ \ \ \ ©�-�':` .. v< ■I rte. —.—•� SILT FENCE (TEMPORARY) N 89 823 54 •E • I PUMP SYSTEM \ _ \ 2, �..ci� ' �1':. Q OUTLET PROTECTION (PERMANENT E 54 7S7 829 �� (BY OTHERS) 1 1 1 — \ \ \: •. $f - , r _, .•• ♦ I 1 \ \ ® 1 ►;^,.Y.r2 0 RIP -RAP RUNDOWN (PERMANENT) N 8,800 \ \ y uv ♦ •..�, i OP ' 111 I \ APPROXIMATE DENOTES 8• ROADBASE SURFACING \ �' TOP OF POND \ \ ` • J'W 6'l V \ \ LOCATION \ I. : . LS' \ i •c �I ELEVATION 111161 4950.00 7 \ \ \ I` \ It. �\ \ • a \ k)„� I TYPE L f k'.'..'I DENOTES 4' GRAVE) SURFACING i \ •Ir,' •54' MINA/Ial 140N FABRIC \ \ BOTTOM ELEVATION BOTTOM 1 , 11 Of POND 494S.00 411 , Of PONDvyvj \ \ ` _ \ \ \ E, . �•'d' 'f.tt � I IeENCEEGIN " SILT GENERAL LEGEND ; 1 p,\\,^, N B9 721 89700 _ •�' \1, EIEVATTUN 4944.50 -�__� \ \ 1� .� -'O r!i 1 •SS %2�—N 5+EXISTING MAXJR CONTOUR — EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR • \ 4,2.3y _4,2' _' _ NIA FENCE — 721 511,:' —�PROPOSED • \ , \ \ �,� �I�� Nik \ :ii;+K.�,l 1 E 55 959 — 5112 •\ \\gililk PRorQ5E0 MMIN�OR CONpuR \ i SEDIMRILIENT &ASINTION D l �� ilk , _ ... rl t . -- - PROPOSED DRAINAGE \ TOP EL = 4949.00, , 11 �•�•—. TOE Of FILL \ II, BOTTOM El . 11•yity:•n.i ?_ 1. TOP OF CUT •• t 4946.00 TO 4945.00 I 1 '• , > . N CLEARING LIMITS I II ` v ,� — _ _ _ .. PROPERTYOFBI UNES 1489600 I `'r 120' - IB• RCP @ _ r s_L-: TOP OF BERM lI SED. LOG •I --'�__��, __ 2.0% SLOPE WITH N 89 560 ` ��J~� �� I \ \ �P fE5 EACH END E 54 Jell I I \ \ , \ a "p`''—; I ABBREVIATIONS ` ii II , . �3' \ \ \ 1( 14 yT ~`. . Il �\ t \ Ilk, \ \ \ \\\ s v •D� �o $`�, \ g \ \�.> \ \,If P. �A, :.. 41 '- .'I, I I PENCEilT 1489562 BTM BOTTOM CL CENTERLINE E FASTING N 89500 .i ' , INLET PIPING• .':�. v31E1 \ \ \ \ j�RI Si �7. �� E �1 55 964 EL ELEVATIONli EQUATION • COORDINATE'. HP NIGH POINT HAVE BEEN TRUNCATED 1 j ..'::. _� LP LOW POINT CLEARING N N89I 559 E S4 757 ,' I `:I ``� „ I1 ,4� I 1 �' N•5 \ ♦• \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �" \ \ \ ••••••••••-"••.. \ \ \ I �" I ( X; I ` 1 r - I \ . J'W c TYPf MIRAFI1140N 6'L L - ADO 1,200.000 TO ALL x 1.5 MP MID POINT N NORTHING NORTHING COORDINATE,. RIP RAP OVER AND 3,200,000 TO ALL FABRIC FASTING COORDINATES. ` / 1 1 ; \� _ - _____ / -• i 1 ' BEGIN SILT NP1267000 \♦\\ --.N.%,..._ V 6700fI i • --. - - -. FFNCE'END i 1 w� �� f� , � �, • .1 E 11500 = E 3211500 CLEARING ,4`\�� / a�vrvC=airO�r . SED. LOG \ 1 � l �_.'�+J•� C.. - V _ . • al .,7 �-C'� 1 UM TS 1 1 , a\; i' ` = 1L A, - l . ff1"_ _ 1 H 89 446 `:v1,iNB9)76 1 / "( r �Z �R• ♦ • � ' �•' • 5EC1. LOG ♦ N 89400 N 89 375 I SED. LOG • \ �1�\ S:.S1is'«�≥`.�-ia _ _ j� l� �--c-- - - a46: E 55 928 I _ ` _Ii . N !9 Preliminary I E54572 �—i _+ •i+vy� L _-_____ __ � E 55 928 •\ EXISTINGF FENCE PROPERTY 54 875 , \ \ �/ •� 1 SED. LOG I I Not For COnKVUCuor` YY I 1 CORNER N 89 332 . I I SED. LOG N 09 1)6 ' N. N. 4gv 3 SED. LOGS 4940 _ N 89 SCl E 55928 347 , ♦ . \I I : PROPERTY CORNER 11 I[ 54 870 : E S+ 876 . \ ` '1489317_ 811. �L/ .�.a h _ 1.,il :a—� } PROPERTY CLEARING .. - _ _ - _ ''A�r� \ - \ _ _ _ \ CLEARING F SS 975I I - m m m m •- - - - m - m LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE m m: m rn LIMITS •^ m 1 ��I N 89700 CORNER ` LIMITS _ - - - _ __ -I.A - - NORTH ' `^ - -'^ _ •^ - - - v' N '^ N tl9 )MIP �' 1/4„, H /9 302 ' N tl9 ]30 vi p - E S4 870 u E 54 07] $ $ $ PROPERTY BOUNDARY‘54_-� g' g u E 55 931 R a3 4 -Jr �Ir ig�/su �!/�ySSA i SCALE: I' . w„'-7 CM bul •••wr>++w Wy •=r l•g,•..,•4 •a w>.• I. • 10 r• .I..MI CURE TON MIDSTREAM CURETON PROJECT NUMBER Peewee W=N tau.. .•.•A NILOEBAANO EMS/ III ® MIDSTREAM am.. WELD COUNTY. CO lIlhO �I RRWW�'11 CURE-TON FRONT RANGE LLC FRO'.r RAr.CE GAS PLAN - 17227 W....en s* Wsw,•.. a•. A cEUOCG 02/09/10 w-• wone ••_ .A. ✓•s.•• •.�4•..•ra ••w•ry••.=•w.�= BE •1A5 * A ISSUED tO* EFIMJT 4L2LIR c.w.o. - — .I I.. Samuel Engineering DRAWING NW46E4 ,_.. �_ , . �_ f ;i ; I i .i; • I •.• • • o• u. w ..�)r ia M. IM1,.♦Y IMN4 a •�Y••.r..I .• • a ".•••"•• ,,, •' ""• REFERENCE DRAWINGS i [� REVISIONS REVISIONS V I S i 0 M 5 ..,..- +0"w�r�ar+Ee '�"'�^'•-- EXHI GIrw4� mEFrN EN ICJ n••E� Rl-CE-401 A` - D'avrNrS1CURI Cl. 402 cy 2 44 \ \ 1 \ '\ `{ \ PROPERTY BOUNDARY +--•I f GENERAL NOTES \ \ \ \ \ \ CLEARING LIMITS N 91 0�5 \ \ 1 vP �o \ \ ', \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ a ti., \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ POND OUTFALL O ROADSIDE DITCH ---7,,,... \ 4'W x 10' L x 1.5' D ( TYPE L RIP RAP OyER \ GEOTEXTILE FASIC 1 1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED GRADE. \ 2. TYPICAL SWALES HAVE 8H : 1V SIDE SLOPES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. REFERENCE DRAWING CURL -CE -601 FOR OUTLET STRUCTURE AND TRICKLE CHANNEL DETAILS. 1 •--_.t•__.1- \ E 55 OI'6 \ \ \ \ \ \ WITH BEGINFECSLFARING 4. INCORPORATE THIS DRAWING WITH TIE FOLLOWING DRAWINGS: CURI-CE-2O0 SERIES FOR GRADING PLANS, \4) �-LIMITSE __�-._ _ . _ 602 FOR RAINAGE PLAN CURT{ -601- THE DRAINAGE a.a..�•-----i.✓.-----a-. 1 \\N91059 \, . S. RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTINGES PRIOR WILL BCONTRACTOR JRETON EPERSONNEL CLEARING • �.a.-a.-r�------------------ -- -- •.:..a.a..r ---- E 55 914 I O SITUNDERGROUND O CONSTRUCTION. TfEOR IS TO ENSURE THAT 811E AND ARE CONTACTED LIMITS♦ SED. LOO 'I I ... ............ ��r��•�.•Y••.i••i•• •'�"�"-------�..i.-��-.: \ N �90 9771 Ir' N 01 072 \ �\ , t PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. CAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN DURING ALL EXCAVATION OF SOIL 4 E 923 �' E , ` ` \ \ BEGIN RR�r�r OP END CLEARING AND FOUNDATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. CONTACT ENGINEER IF THERE ARE CONFLICTS. t /� � _ T17 J:*K " ` �� 1 �. ` . �E55914 \ \ . • -6. ' SED. LOG N 91055 I LIMITS N91036 X55917TIMING, THE ►A)ORITY OF THE SITE GRAVEL WILL BE INSTALLED AFTER EQUIPMENT IS SET ANC) FINAL GRADING I5 COMPLETE, THE CONTRACTOR 15 O COORDINATE WITH CURETON PERSONNEL FOR ALL GRAVEL INSTALLATION `� \ -� III L SED' OG \ \ \ \ \ \PERSONNEL DETENTION DEIGN FOR DETAIL POND VOLUME -• 1.98 AF SEE DRAWING \ \ \ M 1 END FENCE ( SF 7. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO SUBMIT A GRADATION SAMPLE TO CURETON PRIOR TO PLACING GRAVEL MATERIAL. CURETON WILL DETERMINE SIZE OF GRAVEL TO BE USED. USE 1• MINUS CRUSHED GRANITE FOR THE SITE BENCH AREAS FOR BID PURPOSES AND PLACE AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. �I N 9075 SF I CUR1-CE-603 \ \ y N 91 036 \ +B E 54 926 ,I E 55 914 B, PERIMETER SILT FENCE IS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. AU. OTHER EROSION CONTROL I ' �,L - j• s 19y5` \ MEASURES CAN BE INSTALLED AFTER ROUGH GRADING AND DRAINAGE IS COMPLETE. I FFF \ \ \ +, o\ .� 9. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SILT FENCE OR SILT FENCE CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SEDIMENT I E1 0 1 � 4925 v J ! ��7 } \ j ` , \ \ /' \ OVTLE�T \ \ STRUCTUR. \ MICR • . • • •�•. \ \ I 1 CONTROL LOGS PROVIDING EROSION CONTROL IS MAINTAINED. I 10. AN APPROVED PORTABLE CONCRETE WASHOUT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAIL SHOWN ON 'I THIS DRAWING AND DRAWING CURL{E-4O2, SEE SHEET CURI-CE-402 FOR GENERAL LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS AND ROAD SECTION. N \ )\ \ �� \ \ \ \ \ 11. FOR BERM AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS REFERENCE THE LANDSCAPE PLANS PREPARED ‘ ._ 6. \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 BY NORRIS DESIGN NOTES \ .. -'� ` ` • \ - - \ �i - ` \ \ .\ \ \ \ \ V �• L. \ ' TRICKLE \�\ \ \\\ ` _\ \ CHANNEL \\ig?4 \ \ 49.4.♦. / 4,VO ' \ I \ I2. I. FOR SITE PLAN AND LOCATION INFORMATION REFERENCE DRAWING CURL -CE -103 FOR CIVIL SITE PLAN AND NOTES, , CURL -CE -601 & 602 FOR DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLANS AND NOTES. EROSION CONTROL BMPS ON THIS DRAWING ARE SHOWN LARGER THAN ACTUAL SIZE FOR CLARITY. I 3. PERMANENT SEEDING AND MULCHING WILL BE REQUIRED OUTSIDE SECURITY FENCING ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS • _ \ \ \ \ I NOT RECEIVING GRAVEL OR ROAD BASE DURING CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO URBAN DRAINAGE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT STANDARDS VOL III. RI \ - � E �3 - - ` S. THE RECEIVING WATERS FOR THE SITE ARE BOX ELDER CREEK AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. � 03 1 • •I \ \ �f SED IJDG N.90 643 I - '�.-,,__.1..... \ - \ \ \ \ I 6. SITE AREA AND AREA OF DISTURBANCE FOR THIS SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 28.73 ACRES. \ / \ \ 1' 7. WORK THESE DRAWINGS WITH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THIS SITE. E 54 92-6- \\ \ \I Z I � -•4-- _� +-- 4 • • : • ••• • • \• • , 1 GRUBBING NOTES I \ ..• ; 1 t �Ir. �,. I .I u di \ \ i \,• • • .\� • • . I • 1. ALL VEGETATION AND ORGANIC MATERIAL IS TO BE REMOVED AS DEFINED BY THE CLEARING UNITS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. CLEARING LIMITS ARE ESTIMATES AND THE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONFIRM WITH THE ONSITE CONSTRUCTION I. I tn!i1�E^ \ • • 11 'i 1 l \ 1. \�1 � •1 1 I • • ' ,• .\. •\'• •\ • •• • • • • \• • • • � \• • • • • • • '9t'• • • • •• •'P • • • ' ( I I MANAGER FOR FINAL CLEARING UNITS. 3. THE DEPTH OF TOPSOIL AND ORGANIC MATERIAL IS APPROXIMATELY C. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO REMOVE ALL ORGANIC MATERIAL PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. ESTIMATED GRUBBING SHOWN THIS • 1 \1\v1""j,_ ,I a• • �\ I �. 4. THE CLEARING AND QUANTITY ON DRAWING AT4• AVERAGE DEPTH IS 15,450 CUBIC YARDS. N a \ ,•,\EXISTING � ` , I \ \ i • •, •\ • • .•-•\-r •\ .. . �j • V .• I � 5 . IN AREAS INSIDE OF THE FENCE LINE, WHERE GRUBBING IS NOT PERFORMED THE CONTRACTOR IS TO MOW OR CUT VEGETATION. 1 • �q• EROSION CONTROL LEGEND 1 I.............. • 1. • ` ' • CONCRETE WAOUT (TEMPORARY)LIMITS Ims ' �+r- • ;• '`-4 \ �\\ . •� I:.,h •, \ EQUATION • COORDINATES a \\ ' REARING LIMITS MATCHLINE \- \ �' \ _� •� n: ® SCI. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (TEMPORARY) HAVE BEEN TRUNCATED. ♦ N 90 300 E 54 929 t• mss-- \_J___1 I - \ • . . • • I •\ • \ ,•• • • A A. • • r O MATCHLINE ADD 1,200,000 O ALL y, N 90 300 PERMANENT SEEDING (INCLUDES NORTHING COORDINATES ' \ H \% 1 7 �• \ \ E SS 917 I:::::;•:: Q EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS) AND 3,200,000 TO ALL i f �p SED. \ - \ } \ p'\ B B ' ' r .1• m 1 • \• \.-- y r • '1/4. �' \ 0 SILT FENCENE _ m1 - I }. ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER LASTING COORDINATES. PROPERTYO EXAMPLE: MATCHLINE—Ell ® SILT FENCE LOGO \ \ • • 9�1 • 9,P \ (TEMPORARY)N 67000 N90300 = J MATCHLINE IN90300 \ y: ( • • NtI • • • • 1. , \ N 90300 -t• 55 952�9 �OF� PROTECTION E 11500 E 3211500 I I j•�• OUTLET (PERMANENT). 1 Es4932HU I \ . , 111 •\•\..�.. E 55 914�E , ' ,3-73r�, a RIP -RAP RUNDOWN (PERMANENT) Preliminary N 90300 SEE SHEET CURL -CE -402 MIMMATCHLINE y DENOTES 8' ROADBASE SURFACING Not For Construction lv 1 • DENOTES C GRAVEL SURFACING FaN VTC VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL .... LOC LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION NORTH 1 811 SEDIMENT BASIN c• -•22: -....Ma--- CC I CO •, Know shah WOW r//4 0 CHECK DAM Coll tame pouts n 1 1• - �" t••�• a•^ assCURETON MIDSTREAM U'UREiON MIDSTREAM armor WELD COUNTY, CO TITLE >RDIkR NUHRLR . s...•• Pr •. • ••e••.•rt4 wo rr Yrr'L_—•4♦C •ee 4••..a •.4 •rn o•.•.,,n..,_..S. Y ...., tA• '••• • .a4,r M rva.+•a• a,,,,••,,. N nit WIN,, •!•m•.•••ay near • a .•••u. ~a N ,7/ is AV.r•.r �>m A,IaROERRANO 02/05/Il CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT CIVIL GENERAL EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEET 20F2 - 17227 o.,•. H. KELLOGG 02/06/LB ;gg1NLNG NUMBER OP MANS TM A ISSUED FOR SID 02/05/LO MA5 Ur •�•w -/-/- Samuel Engineering IY•..o.•e•S0Nrc•• •s •w<••n.e. ii IN t 9 �' e +na. �... r. ` P� $� o �e.:.�.• �:. •o• •. .,..a•• CUR1-CE-402 A Decor r...r•r••r• s..• REFERENCE DRAWINGS - - s REVISIONS - REVISIONS — .w.•.• wr,ln..o..PY••••.AY•]6G Pmxu,,...rc o.w.aomvros.o0 +L, rr ♦W;:::, Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT CURETON FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51, KEENESBURG. CO 80643 PARCEL NOS: 13051900029, 130519100032 LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION 1AMRECX18-02-3190 AND LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION 1AMRECX18-04-3799: LOCATED IN PART OF THE NE4 OF SECTION 19. T2N, R64W OF THE 6TH PM. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. PREPARED FOR: CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC 518 17"' STREET. SUITE 650. DENVER. CO PREPARED BY: SAMUEL ENGINEERING, INC. 8450 EAST CRESCENT PARKWAY, SUITE 200 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 ISSUED FOR USR PERMIT 17-0065 REVISION 0 FEBRUARY 2018 D 2 EXHIBIT \-4 L 0 • Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT CURETON FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51, KEENESBURG, CO 80643 PARCEL NOS: 13051900029, 130519100032 LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION 1AMRE X18-02-3190 AND LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION 1 AM REG 18-04-3799; LOCATED IN PART OF THE NE4 OF SECTION 19, T2N, R64W OF THE 6TH PM, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. PREPARED FOR: CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC 518 17th STREET, SUITE 650, DENVER, CO PREPARED BY: SAMUEL ENGINEERING, INC. 8450 EAST CRESCENT PARKWAY, SUITE 200 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 ISSUED FOR USR PERMIT 17-0065 REVISION 0 FEBRUARY 2018 CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC CURETON FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT AND PLAN CERTIFICATION "I hereby certify that this report for the final drainage design of the Cureton Front Range Gas Plant was prepared under my direct supervision in accordance with the provisions of the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria for the owners thereof." Mark A. skelskey Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 39396 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS HI. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 5 V. CONCLUSION VI. REFERENCES VII. APPENDICES 8 VIII. EXHIBITS IX. DETENTION POND MAINTENANCE PLAN 9 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The subject project is located in part of the northeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 02 North, Range 64 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, County of Weld, State of Colorado. The property address is 8537 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg Colorado. The property is located south of County Road 20 and west of County Road 51. No public streets are proposed within the property. There are no lakes or streams immediately adjacent to the subject property and the property is not located in a floodplain. The Henry Lyn irrigation ditch crosses east of the centerline of the property. All of the proposed gas plant and plant equipment will be east of the ditch. Cureton will own 100 acre-feet of the water rights from the ditch. The surrounding area development consists of mostly irrigated farmland. Immediately adjacent to the proposed plant are two residential properties, one directly north and the other south and west. There are two well pads and a tank battery west of the proposed plant. Refer to Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map B. Description of Property Cureton Midstream, LLC (Cureton) is in the process of expanding operations in Weld County,Colorado. This project will include a cryogenic plant and interconnecting pipelines for the purpose of processing and the transportation of raw natural gas through gas pipelines. This application for a Use by Special Review Permit only addresses the construction of a 00MMBCED cryogenic plant on property to be purchased by Cureton. Additional USR permit applications will be submitted for any future plants, compressor stations, pipelines or other facilities. The closest cross streets to the proposed plant are Weld County Road 51 and Weld County Road 20. The site is located approximately 3/5 miles northwest of Keenesburg,. Co. in South Weld County. The site address is 8537 County road 51, Keenesburg, CO. The size of the property, (Parcel #s-130519100032, 130519100029 equals 145.8813 acres), will be reduced in area to reflect the proposed area associated with Lot B of proposed amended recorded exemptions RE -3799 and RE -3190 and will have a separate address. Lot B consists of 73.55 acres of which 31.73 acres will be disturbed. Page 1 of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 The approximate center of the plant is located at Latitude 40.126000, and Longitude -104.587222°. The portions of the property proposed for development are primarily irrigated crop lands with no trees. The ground cover consists mainly of cut farm crops. The Henry Lyn ditch is a concrete lined ditch that parallels the west plant boundary. Initially this ditch will remain undisturbed. All storm water from the proposed plant will be directed away from the ditch and into a detention pond. Topographic relief over the property ranges from 4950' to 4920 in elevation and is characterized by mostly flat grades that typically range from 0.5% to 3%. Historic stormwater flows are generally in an east and northeast direction across the parcel. The flows then follow roadside ditches before heading north into open fields. The majority of the site (97%) consists of Weld Loan that has a Unified Soils Classification (USC) rating of CL. The remaining 3% of the soils are classified as Colby Loam also with a USC rating of CL The hydrologic group rating for these soils is "C" Refer to Exhibit 3 — Hydrologic Soils Group and Unified Soil Classification (USC). Initial construction will include site grading for an oil and gas support facility (cryogenic facility) including amine units, utility buildings, maintenance buildings, PDC buildings, dehydration units, cryogenic units, refrigeration units, residue compressors, vessels, tanks, towers, and miscellaneous support facilities for the 60MMSCFD processing facility. Final site surfacing will consist mainly of road base and gravel inside of the site fencing and native grasses following Weld County requirements for the remainder of the property. Terracon Consultants performed a subsurface exploration dated December 01, 2017. Groundwater was encountered in most of the borings at depths of 9' to 14' below the existing surface. All equipment will be constructed above any groundwater elevations. The site where the plant is proposed is currently planted with agricultural crops. The existing drainage sheet flows across the site from southwest to northeast and into the County Road 51 roadside ditch. There are no water quality features or erosion control measures for storm water runoff. Stormwater from the improved site will be directed to a proposed 2.38 -acre-foot detention and water quality pond (the design volume calculated for the site is 1.98 acre-feet, the site configuration allows for a larger pond in the event an Page 2of10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 expansion of the plant is proposed). The discharge from this pond will follow the natural drainage patterns at regulated release rates. The detention pond will be designed to hold the 100 -year 1 -hour event and release at the 10 -year 1 hour release rate following Weld County Drainage requirements for Non -Urbanizing Drainage Areas. The receiving waters are tributary to an unnamed creek that flows north and west into Box Elder Creek with the ultimate receiving waters being the South Platte River. IL DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Major Basin Description The subject property is not part of the Weld County Master Drainage Plan. Drainage across this site will be confined to the area where the gas plant will be constructed. Although the area is part of a larger drainage basin, all offsite stormwater will be directed around the site into open fields in the same pattern it currently flows. The basin tributary to the project site is approximately 192 acres with 37.83 acres of this basin included in the proposed development area. This 192 acres is primarily undeveloped farm and pasture land with the exception of two (2) residential properties and scattered oil and natural gas well pads and well support equipment. Ground cover within the basins consists of irrigated crops, prairie grasses and weeds. Drainage typically sheet flows southwest to northeast. B. Sub -Basin Description The post -developed site will contain a single sub -basin and discharge into a single design point. The sub -basin will encompass an area of 25 acres. This area historically drains in a northeast direction toward the single design point. All of the runoff from this sub -basin post development will drain into the detention pond. All post development offsite drainage will be directed around the site and follow the pre -developed sheet flow patterns across the unimproved property north and east of the proposed construction. III. DINA►GE DESIGN CRITERIA A. The drainage concepts and designs have been completed in accordance with the guidelines Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria. No deviations from the Page 3 of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 Criteria were used in development of this drainage study. Other references used in developing this report include the Urban Drainage Criteria Manuals. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints Existing roadside ditches adjacent to the property are not well defined and will be improved as needed with the construction of the proposed site improvements. A private driveway north of the property currently has a poorly functioning 12" CMP installed for access. This pipe will be evaluated and upgraded if necessary. Erosion control best management practices including rip -rap, silt fence, erosion control logs, erosion blankets, terracing etc. will be installed throughout the construction areas. C. Hydrological Criteria The design Rainfall for the site was obtained from the NOAA Atlas 2, volume III The 10 and 100 -year values used for this project are 1.40 and 2.66 inches per hour respectively. The design reoccurrence rainfall intensities for this project have been established as the 10 -year and loo -year one -hour events. The rational method was used to calculate peak runoff for the property. Excel spreadsheets from UDFCD were used to calculate peak runoff, WQCV, Detention pond 10-yr and 100-yr storage volumes and WQCV 40 -hour release quantities. Bentley Flow Master was used to calculate culvert sizes, ditch capacities, orifice openings and weir sizing. Excel spreadsheets were used to crosscheck detention pond capacities, rip -rap sizing and Impervious values. Detention pond volumes, maximum discharge rates and WQCV were calculated using UDFCD Detention Basin Volume Estimating Workbook,Version 2.35, released January 2015 using the modified FAA method. The required volume was checked using Urban Drainage detention basin design workbook, version 3.07 revised February 2017. Refer to Appendix A D. Hydraulic Criteria Detention pond capacity calculations were derived using UDFCD spreadsheets and end area method. Stage storage calculations are included with exhibit 6. The detention pond outlet structure is a CDOT type D inlet with a 24 -inch reinforced concrete outlet pipe that at 1.0% slope has full flow capacity equal to the 100 -year allowable unit release rate (24.98cfs) that equates to 1.00 cfslacre Page 4 of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 per the attached urban drainage "detention volume by the FAA method". The outlet structure also controls the WQCV for the 40 -hour drain time with the use of a perforated orifice plate and circular holes. The 10 -year release rate is controlled with a rectangular opening orifice as part of the Type D structure at the 10 -year water surface elevation with a release rate of 7.49 CFS also conforming to the same FAA method stated above. No check or drop structures were used in the drainage design. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept The Front Range Gas Plant, will be constructed on approximately 25 acres within the center portion of the property; the flows from these 25 acres will be intercepted initially and routed around the site until developed. All runoff that can be captured from the developed sites will be directed to the detention pond. Site drainage will be controlled with overland flows directed into wide shallow swales that will channel water into the detention pond. Landscape berms are proposed ad shielding for the plant and the proposed berms will prevent the majority of offsite stormwater from entering the site. A swale will be constructed between the Henry Lyn ditch and the plant to intercept any storm water from the west of the parcel. Information included in this report will include an overall site plan, pre - development and post development drainage basin delineation, construction drawings for the detention pond, tables for rainfall intensity, area impervious values and various calculation sheets for culverts, ditches, ponds and appurtenances. Refer to Exhibit 4 - Drainage Plans — Pre -Development, Post Development B. Specific Details All roads on the site will be gravel surfaced with CDOT Class 6 roadbase or finely graded recycled asphalt, and designed with a 1% or 2% cross slope. The central trench drain will convey storm water from gas plant phases I and II to the detention pond. All culverts except for the detention pond discharge pipe are designed for the 10- yr storm event. All on -site culverts have been designed with less than 85% of the full -flow capacity. Page 5 of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 There will be a culvert required at the entrance to the plant. The culvert is located within the County Road 51 right-of-way and will follow County minimum size requirements for culverts in Right-of-ways, 15 -inch minimum diameter. Roadside drainage ditches along the north private access road are not well defined and will require improvements to contain flows that will discharge from the site. Currently storm water flows into these shallow bare earth ditches and into existing culverts that discharge into the existing drainage patterns and into open fields north of the site. The existing ditches will requiremaintenance and erosion control measures before and during construction. All ditches are deep or wide enough to handle the 25-yr storm event. The detention pond storage capacity was determined using the UDFCD spreadsheet, Detention Basin Volume Estimating Workbook, Version 2.35 release 2015 by the modified FAA method. The pond size and shapes were determined from the required volumes. The required detention pond volume has been calculated to be 1.98 acre-feet. The actual capacity including freeboard is 2.38 acre-feet; calculated WQCV is 0.35 acre-feet, 10-yr storage is 0.64 acre-feet and the 100-yr storage volume is 1.98 acre-feet. The outlet design for this pond has a micro pool, WQCV capacity with controlled discharge, 10-yr storage capacity also with controlled discharge and 100-yr storage capacity with controlled discharge and emergency overflow. Maintenance access into the detention pond has been provided and is shown on the detention pond drawings. Refer to Exhibit 6 Detention Pond Plans, Sections and Details The detention pond does not have a fill area or dam taller than 10 -ft, therefore no permit was filed with CDPHE. A drainage easement will be prepared for this site and facilities by LW survey. V. CONCLUSION A. Compliance with Standards 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. E. Historical Flow Patterns Maintained Page 6 of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 All grading and drainage design for this project have been completedwith the intent to maintain the existing drainage patterns. All stormwater that flows from the south is directed east away from the project site into the current drainage patterns. All stormwater from the project site is directed to the detention pond where the runoff is released at rates consistent with pre -development volumes and velocities. VI. REFERENCES A. Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria, Chapter 23, Weld County Department of Public Works Weld County Colorado, 2015. B. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Volume me 1 updated March 2017, Volume 2 updated September 2017 and Volume 3 updated November 2015. VII. APPENDICES A. Hydrology Computations 1. Precipitation Frequency Esti mates 2. Area Weighted Impervious values 3. Historic Major and Minor Storm Runoff computations 4. Developed Major and Minor Storm Runoff Computations B. Hydraulic computations 1. Peak Runoff Calculations for Culverts 2. Culvert Sizing Computations 3. Detention Pond 10 -err and 100-yr Volume Calculations 4. Detention Pond WQCV Computations — WQCV Orifice Sizing Computations S. Detention Pond Orifice Computations 6. Detention Pond Outlet Computations Page7of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 VIII. EXHIBITSS 1. VICINITY ITY MAP 2. SITE PLAN 3. NRCS SOILS 4. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP 4. DRAINAGE PLANS - PRE -DEVELOPMENT, POST DEVELOPMENT 5. DETENTION POND PLANS, SECTIONS AND DETAILS Page 8 of 10 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: 303.714.4840 FAX: 303.714.4800 warm ,„ _ - Pi -- r�.p r. ai i '- . 7 : 4 i -- a ,r j I 4 1 . i, li 4,41% iist Y . rI a�!�ure_ (�e A T. . I- .1.11__ �S `�._'.��i . t L V - II • • 14 Li. n A b1p1 ! lit Zt it,w RIj .a. II - ova^=.v n, , > jJy ..-. nraCICOJW,CO tins 1lCdtsl Nan�...�, :'.i� c MIA GA$ n larr r'.u.9•�Utx■�Qoau�crc.lwn 'Silt PI.A>fl YF.1411X tall. 1212.7 as. Tent Il.r. ...-!-ar YL■wiOna4w1 I me,•. It u .•.: -. ....-._I .,iLr5 r_• ,. �.. xP.Zt'Y+ r4.e ei b' IVINI.I relIr O.. Yili*A sag nl _. u•.N 1 die . it I N .p :... y'. e • r i ! H �� .. st • 1.Q9. CIS 'Ss A I►CIC%'E�itli4'3GS IfVISItik$ _'. N I.d.1 .a.. kill tastala lids= win Ibtricaiiil s X14 .attn rr nn&a I 2 r VICINITY MAP Page 9 of 10 M 3 4 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 1 4 A D I? r IT Phone: 808.714.4840 FAX: 303.714.4800 H N 92089 ,� 1 Sr . L. LL I Y P'AO•CRTY 4 I CORNER i . I: N a ni isD IL ENs7. V.£LD CR. 7e1 %VELD LL COUNTY USRs7-0065 in NI a La Low n, U, 1 vl PSOPEAT• n 'aR/„R V 411..4450 UI .n W t c • _I I g m I .111 . v 9vfYER: '+caNf rANOe PlaO91•Z.11.w— OWYf0.111 NPI P75,54 . LCe4.NTY RRMAINBVk_0, ��i.4'—CC{1K, GEOWGETRENT �I ES491aOi EAi9r1RG MEl170129 .. -. iTEWART-TelOMAS _OH RI ,• 6 Si ••- n ---trim-..-7, F. •- _ _. .. IL\\I -- -.� �,a r�779.1L �-. ■••Awe...• o .r N TI BUY �. J / u'. _ / — 9 i "9 �r 4 ` BCYS'FIR9 f ow.ra: 1 OWNAJ{I DICSIEC I MEORGROl7D ff I - - v (R90CITTY H9YWAW, PAIN I NORM R.S.TIIwR. ,:,Lnct WAXER. Urta[Cl e] N.{` 1 r I d �� ti _ - l!�►,1� jt P'dl t • v1 DIM-% I 41 I o AII ,FA:[SI1R•a woman ^ I W E54921,S5 VO.oY 94! J� 0•< I Pi(Jet Ric a LRNRi I — --.4Ic Tifri c.o.11 X'.1'11 N11600 �• -- :%ISTGO RICE = 9 I. R91NdR1 3 \ ---� -� I • I•o, I. V01.4T E SS 771,11 ESA JLGre, JAMCS A TAU51 • l liy t LEGEND • ElciSTIuG 72J28 ALRLO E T II & 'a \ '• °MOO 07•110UR(ENIS1311G) a. 31400 l Irn _,��. 1" I\ II - RKRTwenerSat N9.50 \ SUSSING CN•Rm MD 1 .was PRW`Gacv RIF.n'.•s°••NA. WO PLOPOSED S !!" 4 -- N932Qn _._ _? 1 \ PJiEL4D>tE3JX .3.4. 04 \ LOT IS T(}Piri t 9 A4;Rt5 �I r% II II HE71FL7 TA a aualnG LYN itR1GAT.Ok Mt IM INllt•LtlrtAFfL cti 4nBI,ctWN DITCHROVRLIM h ,. PRIPERTY COIRDLEI( LI ; Ii I .�__� AD101NOMfi ED", —_-._-- San* awe % \ I I GTDPRHvI'LR DE5R IL 0GTCNDOV AIM%E — L9B PCWD�N•. ACI FEET I00,;V a 5f 933,3 - !• I • ----LIE bQ4J9DARYRROPE3TY UK PROPOSED bait 901ND4RY.PFO/CR1Y LINE .......... NO W11.x157LiIJLIZ PRAIA. .---- OM:MCE AG4r A ktaor 1 iaw:f�lo-E � � _ Jf __ -- I ro Bp lDon.av - - _'Irs - •T" � <I� i .p TROF C %OW WOW Imo `._' Y 41 aa.'. imewLOTI1ACz• I I gd.I r —�J -r Iiv.Ai.OF•WA4 — — EASEMENT LINE OWN9R1 CORIrRR \ 3 . ana, wa•D,• x911 1®.RF 1 r rylDr, 1, naH u•K e 53287,35 Era:MC T I I / I 1 SECOLETY ry' WIDE NOTES R 51:897. 1 • U rL! \ + ERL:1I$C P1fOPEPTr Uric Iter" , f I SNAI I' I [ I c` / ,J I i ONAA•A! ELR a. THE TRW !MIME GAS AIN'T LS tmaim171 LOX' a air 4EODRcED E CWPT79N I. F$C IV nt-PL]JD3 .YID Q1 G CC RCORCG. GM IP17i•2111AMRLOCATEDPF94-77911 LOCATED THE NE 1N run- TN: 114. CF SECT.. % Ii, ICA411SH(P c2 NORTH, WOW 64 WE5I,(W TH: 6TH 1.-t.nn �IG77?1• ow °1y— I a� — __—•• 1 _' _ —'1 - - ' —mot -- 1tll r I'. IE'-�?'a a �i PRINCE& IOW N( WELD 09.41' (COCOA)°, 2. TYESITE TOPOGRsPIIKSURVEY'FOR TiL5 ?OHO WAS MDARBS BY LM SLIME HI 2017, . --- •'MUM °� \ PROPOSED LCI A. / — I . =•. HGI Wine; .. 4k m TM iitetaONrAL DAMN IS BASED ONcetetACO.STATE IFANE[DCRDGLAI'ES,NAD fp(70t11, YCR'K+1. taws Fa peg: wren m. LW COMER, 14in DL3ET1VG ► 'TANY�TTLIY YYEILPAD I -, I F • 5 3. OFF SLTE PMO PED PIPING IXPINEC1IONS 10 T)€FACDJTY D€SrQMED Elf OTFER S, II I -111' E 131'7.5( `y\ Mehra 8 •. ••.;••• ,• '.. , • t d] 4 90CI IMI•dL(w1Yr➢4^I CAN MAW 10UsDMAWNu 4YR7 CC -Loa. 1. i.:420dD0 y �N 1 I . DENYING, C9NNR: A MERT6 k RI rs. _' 3. E111ST rI.many 111 W0 TOPq • 1 G t OCTOI TO MOWN UUN�TROD3604A1h4 I \ \ - , I I S I C4`..1- _ w �M�1I'€�, • 1 .I, I S. IARUSCdW1YG DESIGN FOR MEMO= kORR15 QESIEN 11. TIC 4ROPPZI) LI•ITTS 9r Or MIT.TI AX IP III 3. ACS65, k 992031 I POOP, SECUIlTY T wNrNLIIa MICE ° I CEHr 5EPkRA7O% y, r r °'�` I ^Ii •• PAST MOWS Will GE SHIELDED. PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS -S n L MOTORED AMENDMENT UT A. TC RE`3T$;I\\ I fiABD.QEIY r -NFTTR % I IMPOSED .AYPD4N i X11 I I 1[N1tEE ETI 1. SITE GRAM°WLI BE JEW -DRIED NO CLOS:RTH.N S FETE FR04 Any MLOPEFTY-MC (22dS CMS) i4 am E 4 I I -L IIE I tlt� COMPRESSORS 4� r -•LL � I �'k OKIGIO *L �a A 49909 RL-3IE9TB t I �j rY AO'r'II!Y MDGGJ GAL�IRK I { 76'25 Eats; 11 — - - � '� 41051 ssa55EPE • ;. -a - 0 S .• Y PR6P09C0 1 WT ) RE-31§9`uunCNRt3 e , i "' 0 0-.I -D 4"I \ SSi11CCITCf1ER % I '�I� 4"I ' comm. 1 9NII'LO.[S w.t•9 I.I FrJOM G •?6 Ai NAC5 N9Fi7^tlt+ {81.71 JL'RE5) 1 I 1 '•.,• a ELISE V RD 111A9N DIN Ni9Eo, Yn'T 4RrakRTl1 ` I I TAOAC� � {1'fLuscl KaNfxeq CCOWER%% r— - -'ORd'I I1 `'� EIP (I . ,. .. !? II. a4AG 1, 1 !` I r �0. DR03CT SUN 8 •A6 I D IRI1GTf0• I E - yll. I' • ERRA MANE t•WMM RICFIACQ ( ranwRcn 0.1 - E%IEXDIG FENCE \ I •a �� I I Na. •11.'.4114: I . 1.� `•; ( ;slat a MO. J N •9d09 u:Ht50N, CCIOlt1 1 I v , 4II .. t tN•RANCE GA ie IS 1211+ c n117 C4Pir RDAC NPM443 YI Oe 4723.'1,03 , -.TY LLGE•OFGRAVEL wain; JORR5ON, YIRGIL 03434618 •. l I I I� �` • . — -• , LOT 1::__ N 18400 RE -3719 �"" MB931 7.71'. CRPP09•D rAO-WAY TRlV1'; F- - - -� - EQUtt1ON-OOCOOINA7F6 I6.2R ACRES) 1n T{3,79 I sn9°tai• 9 'be** uAJC OG09,000 TO TCC ALD LiM,000 TO ALL 811 7y1• - __ '� - a..+. - — _SII_____9:7 — a - . — N5IETFOIX C�OaR71NA7e>; _ w - — - • — - J' -• w LS,5.3 %3 sea b'i NW 7.2(0,000 N MUD I i' tfWAZA: MYKR: Emma. / A HD TN Ti IHJ]f• COVOR Nei 26.1.11 ATY . EOSTINE DRIVE OWAIC.: CO NOT 01511.RB PFOPERTr CQRM(ER J/'I 49771%94 OHfi°: MATE VOTINGE7a4PMJ11 ATE5. INRLRM°Ii.. TTY �yRr 1•a nDk4aR-N •ADTDaO I I h4C(SOR. JJ$17N K 3 i JAtxS alPOSEIE LTNY i5a@@y.60 ESA 56499 ASl1iY, JOON R cisuwoo 1 EEJ.. war Lies E1159G=E;MEOW Preliminary Nnr enr e"Inern r-1-:-. �t••P,••vril•metalr: b+l l ti 11C T� .-.,i,4, �.. 441414414 4144,4911 ••• _ i M.'. • ".eal_. i.�-y.-p••.A. _.e..-•.....-. -•� LF ,4A ..A a LiiWlib 16A Alt ]41•wlA'P.. .i . - •1'F/ r. .wt CLREION RIDSTREIM II I�JyFyP'•1 Yni WE.9)OOIAFTY.CD T'I+L! MWLCP NLKBCR R MaA vas C MUM Mid) eI.34118'I.. ..M, A,ylirk• WHOM' CURETCN PROW AMR, LTC IRONT RANGE OAS liANI' 0.1.41- Galati aw LIL WE IIJY% 17227 It SAS vas 0 .dLIlf)MARD :..,.. .. 1 .rile 1veYM9: •w.lws. a m. M Mkt MIS a 3s1,0. RRIR2 . •, . • L.•rt 9'lii�7LM Samuel Enghaerllg MAtm. S. — Yni4•Ib• I EPEFENet DRAR'I Ha Ii jj' '? ...Mil/1-Y REY1910%5 .e e 1 4 it 8I i w •,a.H H1va keel SICN9 .- , , CUR 1 —CE -102 . ..:. 4:--.a .x a• Fr rs.14 A a C SITE PLAN Page 10 of 10 F G H a 4 40° 7' 58" N 40° 7 21" N 104° 35' 33" W 8 r r- r 1040 35' 33" W A 534300 Unified Soil Classification (Surface) Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Cureton Cryo) 534900 53FOOD p may not be valid at this scale. 5.'4800 I I 54900 535000 535100 535100 535200 535300 535400 535500 Map Scale: 1:5,450 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters 50 10D 200 300 535200 Feet 0 250 500 1000 1500 Map p -lion : Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WG584 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 535300 53540O 535504 1 104° 34' 57" W 104° 34' 37 W 40° 7'58"N 40° 7 21" N USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey al Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 1 of 5 Unified Soil Classification (Surface) Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Cureton Cryo) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AO!) Area of Interest (A0I) Soils Soil Rating Polygons n CH CL CL -A (proposed) CL -K (proposed) CL -ML CL -O (proposed) C L -T (proposed) GC GC -GM GM GP GP -GC GP -GM OW OW -GC OVA -GM MH MH-A (proposed) MH-K (proposed) MH-0 (proposed) MH-T (proposed) ML 0 ML -A (proposed) 0 ML -K (proposed) 0 ML -O (proposed) Q ML -T (proposed) OH 0 OH -T (proposed) OL PT 0 SC SC-SM Q SM SP 0 SP -SC SP-SM Q SW 0 SW-SC- SW-SM Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines risibe ponsse onkfle Fake CH CL CL -A (proposed) CL -K (proposed) CL -ML CL -O (proposed) CL -T (proposed) porguo pfral poque poRboo poRbe Rbso pookao limbo lase oPrItion GC GC -GM GM GP GP -GC GP -GM OVA OW -GC GW-GM MH MH-A (proposed) MH-K (proposed) MH-O (proposed) MH-T (proposed) ML ML -A (proposed) ML -K (proposed) ML -O (proposed) ML -T (proposed) OH OH -T (proposed) OL PT SC SC-SM SM SP SP -SC SP-SM SW SW -SC SW-SM pi 0 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points CH • • • • • CL CL -A (proposed) CL -K (proposed) CL -ML CL-cD (proposed) C L -T (proposed) GC GC -GM GM GP GP -GC GP -GM OW OW -GC OVV-GM MH MH-A (proposed) • • • • • • 0 0 • • 0 MH-K (proposed) MH-O (proposed) MH-T (proposed) ML ML -A (proposed) ML -K (proposed) ML -O (proposed) ML -T (proposed) OH OH -T (proposed) OL PT SC SC-SM SM SP SP -SC SP-SM SW SW -SC SW -S M Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation 1--I--r, Rails USDA Natural Resources s' Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 2of5 Unified Soil Classification (Surface) We ld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Cureton Cryo) MAP INFORMATION Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (E PS :857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 22, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 17, 2015 Sep 22, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may beevident. USDA Natural Resources F' Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 3of5 Unified Soil Classification (Surface) Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Cureton Cryo Unified Soil Classification (Surface) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 5 Ascalon to 3 sandy loam, percent slopes 0 SM 4.4 3.5% 15 Colby loam, 1 percent slopes to 3 CL 22.4 17.8% 44 Olney 3 loamy sand, percent slopes 1 to SM 9.9 7.9% 47 Olney fine 1 to 3 sandy percent loam, slopes SC 50.7 40.2% 79 Weld loam, 1 percent slopes to 3 CL 38.6 30.6% Totals for Area of Interest 126.1 100.0% Description The Unified soil classification system classifies mineral and organic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis of particle -size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index. It identifies three major soil divisions: (i) coarse -grained soils having less than 50 percent, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; (ii) fine-grained soils having 50 percent or more, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; and (iii) highly organic soils that demonstrate certain organic characteristics. These divisions are further subdivided into a total of 15 basic soil groups. The major soil divisions and basic soil groups are determined on the basis of estimated or measured values for grain -size distribution and Atterberg limits. ASTM D 2487 shows the criteria chart used for classifying soil in the Unified system and the 15 basic soil groups of the system and the plasticity chart for the Unified system. The various groupings of this classification correlate in a general way with the engineering behavior of soils. This correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory investigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make some general interpretations relating to probable performance of the soil for engineering uses. For each soil horizon in the database one or more Unified soil classifications may be listed. One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring. The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Lower USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 4 of 5 40° 7' 58" N 40° 7 21" N 104° 35' 33" W 8 r r- r 1040 35' 33" W A 534300 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Cureton Cryo) 534900 5 500 p may not be valid at this scale. 5.'4800 I I 534000 535000 535100 535100 535200 53530D 535400 5300 Map Scale: 1:5,450 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters 50 10D 200 300 535200 Feet 0 250 500 1000 1500 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WG584 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 535300 535400 535504 I 104° 34' 57" W 104° 34' 37 W 40° 7'58"N 40° 7 21" N USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey al Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (Cureton Cryo) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (ABM) Area of Interest (A0I) Soils Soil Rating Polygons n A 0 AID Q B B/D 0 C CID Q D 0 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines oriels A , AID pishe B B/D C C/D D 0 0 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points • ■ ■ A AID B BID O CAD D ® Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation x-1-4 Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA -MRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 22, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 17, 2015 Sep 22, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources F' Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Cureton Cryo Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 5 Ascalon to 3 sandy loam, percent slopes 0 B 4.4 3.5% 15 Colby loam, 1 percent slopes to 3 B 22A 17.8% 44 Olney 3 loamy sand, percent slopes 1 to B 9.9 7.9% 47 Olney fine 1 to 3 sandy percent loam, slopes B 50.7 40.2% 79 Weld loam, 1 percent slopes to 3 C 38.6 30.6% Totals for Area of Interest 126.1 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/26/2017 Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Cureton Cryo 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 CID). 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 10/26/2017 Page 4 of 4 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 Hydrology Computations Page 11 of 10 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 1 of 3 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Keenesburg, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.125°, Longitude: -104.5864° Elevation: 4939.51 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, 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)1 Duration 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min 30 -min 60 -min 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 12 -hr 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 70 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60 -day Average recurrence interval (years) 1 0.241 (0.192-0.304) 0.353 (0.281-0.445) 0.430 (0.343-0.543) 0.578 (0.461-0.729) 0.710 (0.566-0.896) 0.842 (0.676-1.05) 0.917 (0.740-1.14) 1.08 (0.879-1.33) 1.28 (1.05-1.57) 1.52 (1.26-1.84) 1.73 (1.44-2.07) 1.89 (1.58-2.25) 2.02 (1.70-2.39) 2.31 (1.96-2.72) 2.56 (2.18-3.00) 3.28 (2.81-3.81) 3.86 (3.33-4.45) 4.56 (3.95-5.22) 5.13 (4.46-5.85) 2 0.292 (0.233-0.369) 0.428 (0.341-0.541) 0.522 (0.416-0.659) 0.699 (0.556-0.882) 0.850 (0.677-1.07) 1.00 (0.804-1.25) 1.08 (0.873-1.35) 1.26 (1.02-1.55) 1.51 (1.23-1.84) 1.79 (1.48-2.17) 2.08 (1.73-2.50) 2.25 (1.88-2.68) 2.38 (2.00-2.83) 2.70 (2.28-3.18) 2.98 (2.53-3.49) 3.77 (3.23-4.38) 4.42 (3.80-5.10) 5.22 (4.52-5.99) 5.89 (5.12-6.74) 5 0.390 (0.309-0.494) 0.571 (0.453-0.723) 0.696 (0.553-0.882) 0.929 (0.737-1.18) 1.13 (0.893-1.43) 1.32 (1.06-1.66) 1.42 (1.14-1.77) 1.63 (1.32-2.01) 1.93 (1.57-2.36) 2.28 (1.88-2.77) 2.68 (2.23-3.23) 2.86 (2.39-3.42) 2.99 (2.50-3.56) 3.35 (2.82-3.95) 3.67 (3.10-4.31) 4.56 (3.89-5.31) 5.31 (4.56-6.14) 6.27 (5.41-7.21) 7.10 (6.15-8.14) 10 I 0.483 (0.381-0.615) 0.708 (0.558-0.901) 0.863 (0.681-1.10) 1.15 (0.908-1.47) 1.40 (1.10-1.78) 1.64 (1.31-2.07) 1.76 (1.41-2.21) 2.00 (1.61-2.48) 2.33 (1.89-2.87) 2.73 (2.24-3.33) 3.20 (2.64-3.86) 3.39 (2.81-4.06) 3.52 (2.93-4.20) 3.90 (3.26-4.62) 4.24 (3.57-5.01) 5.21 (4.43-6.09) 6.04 (5.15-7.01) 7.11 (6.10-8.21) 8.06 (6.94-9.27) 2 I 0.631 (0.488-0.853) 0.924 (0.715-1.25) 1.13 (0.872-1.52) 1.50 (1.17-2.04) 1.84 (1.43-2.50) 2.17 (1.70-2.92) 2.33 (1.84-3.13) 2.61 (2.08-3.48) 2.98 (2.37-3.88) 3.42 (2.73-4.37) 3.94 (3.15-4.93) 4.14 (3.32-5.14) 4.27 (3.44-5.28) 4.67 (3.79-5.72) 5.05 (4.11-6.13) 6.10 (5.00-7.30) 7.01 (5.77-8.33) 8.23 (6.80-9.69) 9.31 (7.71-10.9) 50 0.759 (0.569-1.03) 1.11 (0.833-1.51) 1.36 (1.02-1.84) 1.81 (1.36-2.47) 2.22 (1.67-3.04) 2.63 (2.00-3.57) 2.83 (2.16-3.82) 3.17 (2.44-4.23) 3.54 (2.74-4.64) 3.99 (3.10-5.15) 4.53 (3.54-5.74) 4.74 (3.71-5.96) 4.87 (3.84-6.10) 5.29 (4.19-6.55) 5.67 (4.51-6.98) 6.77 (5.43-8.22) 7.75 (6.24-9.33) 9.05 (7.32-10.8) 10.2 (8.29-12.1) 100 0.900 (0.649-1.25) 1.32 (0.951-1.84) 1.61 (1.16-2.24) 2.15 (1.55-3.00) 2.66 (1.92-3.71) 3.16 (2.31-4.37) 3.40 (2.50-4.69) 3.79 (2.81-5.17) 4.16 (3.10-5.58) 4.61 (3.46-6.09) 5.15 (3.88-6.67) 5.35 (4.06-6.89) 5.49 (4.18-7.04) 5.91 (4.53-7.50) 6.31 (4.85-7.93) 7.44 (5.77-9.24) 8.46 (6.59-10.4) 9.84 (7.70-12.0) 11.1 (8.70-13.5) 200 1.06 (0.728-1.51) 1.55 (1.07-2.21) 1.89 (1.30-2.69) 2.53 (1.75-3.62) 3.14 (2.17-4.49) 3.75 (2.62-5.31) 4.05 (2.84-5.71) 4.49 (3.19-6.27) 4.85 (3.46-6.66) 5.29 (3.80-7.15) 5.79 (4.18-7.69) 6.00 (4.36-7.92) 6.15 (4.48-8.07) 6.56 (4.82-8.53) 6.96 (5.13-8.97) 8.12 (6.04-10.3) 9.17 (6.86-11.6) 10.6 (7.98-13.3) 11.9 (8.99-14.8) 500 1.28 (0.848-1.88) 1.88 (1.24-2.75) 2.29 (1.51-3.35) 3.08 (2.04-4.51) 3.85 (2.55-5.64) 4.61 (3.08-6.70) 5.00 (3.36-7.22) 5.53 (3.76-7.90) 5.85 (4.00-8.23) 6.25 (4.31-8.66) 6.67 (4.63-9.09) 6.88 (4.81-9.32) 7.04 (4.94-9.49) 7.45 (5.26-9.92) 7.82 (5.55-10.4) 8.99 (6.44-11.7) 10.1 (7.26-13.1) 11.6 (8.38-14.9) 12.9 (9.40-16.5) 1000 1.47 (0.938-2.16) 2.15 (1.37-3.16) 2.62 (1.68-3.85) 3.53 (2.26-5.19) 4.43 (2.83-6.51) 5.33 (3.44-7.75) 5.79 (3.76-8.36) 6.40 (4.19-9.14) 6.67 (4.42-9.42) 7.02 (4.70-9.80) 7.35 (4.97-10.1) 7.57 (5.14-10.4) 7.74 (5.28-10.6) 8.13 (5.59-11.0) 8.49 (5.87-11.4) 9.65 (6.75-12.8) 10.8 (7.57-14.2) 12.3 (8.69-16.1) 13.7 (9.71-17.8) I Precipitation frequency (PF) 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 https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.1250&lon--104.5864&.data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/20/2018 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 2 of 3 PF graphical PDS-based depth -duration -frequency (DDT) curves Latitude: 40.1250, Longitude: -104.5864' c c I;! LA C its 14 12 10 4-0 CL CLI 8 a 4 C • ti=a La — A 141 5 10 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume B, Version 2 L N r-1 Duration >6 >6 > F13 (V r15 ET IT 10 il N 25 50 100 20C Average recurrence interval (years) ri3 r13 r13 T -0 ©' C} Ui 0 f'=I if le up 500 1000 Created (GMT): Tue Feb 20 16:22:02 2018 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Cr gage recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 Duration 5 -min fir 30 -min 60 -mm 2 -hr 3 -hr 6-lr 12=hr n_a ask. CM -111 2 -day 1 -day 4 -day 7 -day 10 -clay 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day https./ihd c.nws.noa.a. ov/hdsclpfds/p ds_printpage.html?lat=40.1250&lor= -104.5864&.data=dept i&units=en li h&series=pds 2/20/2018 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Page 3 of 3 Large scale terrain 14-1 0 F irtCtilins • ;ikrt p Longs Peak _; ii , lb , r Boulder • Greeley Lon Ant Denver • ; ,100km r Bin —dot 4 INAIL ifomi N e,UlLtt I r_ riaulm F,:feti E F:i -n r :lest Large scale map Large scale aerial 100km erg::Li .Mederad LZ L.�r•i4 -- NW III %ILI 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.Questionsnoaa.gov Disclaimer https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.1250&lon--104.5864&.data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/20/2018 AREA WEIGHTED IMPERVIOUSNESS VALUES CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT WELD COUNTY ROADS 51 AND 20 Prpoject 17227-01 HISTORIC CONDITIONS Surface Characteristic Basin 1 A, acre I, % Al Undeveloped Residential 185.30 2 370.6 6.7 22 147.4 Altai, acre 192.00 2.7 I weighted, 310 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION POND Surface Characteristic Basin 1A A, acre I, % Al Roofs Equipment Pads Recycled Asphalt Gravel Surface/Roadbase Bare Ground Undeveloped 1.20 0.21 1.37 14.81 7A6 12.78 Abotai, acre I weighted, % 90 90 80 40 20 2 108.00 18.90 109.60 592.40 149.20 25.56 37.83 26.53 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION POND Surface Characteristic Basin 1A A, acre I, % Al Roofs Equipment Pads Recycled Asphalt Gravel Surface/Roadbase Bare Ground Undeveloped 1.20 0.21 1.37 14.81 2.77 4.62 Atatai, acre I weighted, % 90 108.00 90 18.90 80 109.60 40 592.40 20 55.40 2 9.24 24.98 35.77 Table RC -2 -Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values Land Use or S,,riade Characteristics Percentage ruiperic+isr ss. 2 ai siness,: Commercial areas 95 ' eighborhxc areas. 85 Resident a. : 1,3 ig e -family Mult-unit :detached) e0 Mult-unit':at ached 1 w `7;-3cr& lot or larger s A z.r1rr-en`s 20 Indusria : L 0^- areas 80 Heavy areas 90 Parks. cemeteries .5 ayprc ur s 10 Schools 50 Railroad yard areas 15 Undeveloped Areas: Hislorio flew analysis noel s, a rioul tur 2 Off -site flow anal . :When land ase nct s def- i; 4 reels: ='aged 1Oa S'.s.wel I:packed) 40 Drive and tea ks 90 Roofs 90 Lawns, saricie soil Di .Lawns. clayey soil El ' See. Figures RC -3 thraugh S, -5 f, r .per :entac. inpery o.snes.s. Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 Hydraulic Computations Page 12 of 10 DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA, METHOD Projec€: Cureton Cryo Basin ID: Runoff Tributary to the Detention 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): Ia = A = Type = T = Tc = q = P1 = 01 = C2= O3 = percent acres A. B, C. or D years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) minutes cfslacne irches Design Information (Input): I;3 = A = Type = T =L Tc = q = P1 = 01 = O2= C3= 35.77 percent acres A, B, C, or D (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) minutes cfstacre inches Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Return Period for Detention Control Time of Concentration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate One hour Precipitation Design RainfallIDF Formula I = C1x P11(C2+Tt)^Cs Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 35.77 Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Return Period for Detention Control Time of Concentration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate One -hour Predpllation Design Rainfall IDF Formula I = C1R P,l(C2+Te)"G. Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 24.980 24.980 C C 10 100 Iyeass 21 21 0.30 1.00 1.38 2.61 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 Peak C = Qp-in = Outflow Rate Qp-out = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = c- Enter Rainfall Duration Incremental Increase Value 0.40 Runoff Coefficient C = Inflow Peak Runoff Ctp-1n = PJlowaMrre Peak Outflow Rate Qp-out = Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 0.58 26.16 71.75 7.49 24.98 31,551 75,147 0.724 1.726 6 Here (e.g. 5 for Ranfa' Duration minutes input) Rainfall Intensity inches 1 hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor urn" (output) Average Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume acre-feet (output) Storage Volume tre-feet (output) Rainfall Duration minutes {input) Rainfall Intensity inches ! hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "m" (output) Averaje Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume xre-feet (output) Storage Volume acre-feet (output). 10 3.70 0.509 1.00 7.49 0.103 0.406 10 7.00 1.397 1.00 24.98 0.344 1.052 16 3.01 0.662 1.00 7.49 0.165 0.497 16 5.69 1.817 1.00 24.98 0.551 1.266 22 2.55 0.773 0.98 7.32 0.222 0.551 22 4.83 2.120 0.98 24.41 0.740 1.381 28 2.2$ 0.859 0.88 6.56 0.253 0.606 28 4.22 2.357 0.88 2146 0.843 1.514 34 1.99 0.929 0.81 6.06 0.284 0.646 34 3.76 2549 0.81 20.20 0.946 1:603 40 1.80 0.989 0.76 5.71 0.315 0.674 40 3.40 2/11 0.76 19.05 1.049 1.662 46 1.64 1.040 0/3 546 0.346 0.694 46 3.11 2.851 073 18.19 1:'153 1.698 52 1.52 1.085 0.70 5.26 0.377 0.708 52 2.87 2.974 0.70 17.53 1256 1.718 58 1.41 1.125 0.68 5.10 0.408 0.717 58 2.66 3.084 0.68 17.01 1.359 1.725 64 1.32 1.161 0.66 4.98 0.439 0.722 64 2.49 3.184 0.66 16.59 1.462 1.721 70 1.24 1.194 0.65 4.87 0.470 0.724 70 2.34 3274 0.65 16.24 1.566 1.709 76 1.17 1.224 0.64 4.78 0.501 0.724 76 2.21 3.358 0.64 15.94 1.669 1.689 82 1.11 1.253 0.63 4.71 0.532 0.721 82 2.10 3.435 0.63 15.69 1772 1.663 88 1.06 1.279 0.62 4.64 0.563 0.716 88 2.00 3.507 0.62 15.47 1.875 1.632 94 1.01 1.304 0.61 4.58 0.594 0.710 94 1.91 3.575 0.61 1528 1.978 1.596 100 0.96 1.327 0.61 4.53 0:625 0/02 100 1.82 3.638 0.61 15.11 2.082 1.557 106 0.92 1.349 0.60 4.49 0.655 0.693 106 1.75 3.698 0.60 14.96 2.185 1.514 112 0.89 1.369 0.59 445 0.686 0.683 112 1.68 3155 0.59 14.83 2288 1.467 118 0.86 1.389 0.59 4.41 0.717 0.672 118 1.62 3.809 0.59 1471 2.391 1.418 124 0.82 1.408 0.58 4.38 0.748 0.660 124 1.56 3.861 0.58 14.61 2.495 1.366 130 0.80 1.426 0.58 4.35 0.779 0.647 130 1.51 3.910 0.58 14.51 2.598 1.313 136 0.77 1.443 058 4.33 0.810 0.633 136 1.46 3.958 0.58 1442 2/0 1.257 142 0.75 1.460 0.57 4.30 0.841 0.618 142 141 4.003 0.57 14.34 2.804 1.199 148 0.72 1.476 0.57 4.28 0.872 0.603 148 1.37 4.047 0.57 1426 2.907 1.139 154 0.70 1.491 0.57 4.26 0.903 0.588 154 1.33 4.089 0.57 14.19 3.011 1.078 160 0.68 1.506 0.57 4.24 0.934 0.572 160 1.29 4.129 0.57 14.13 3.114 1.015 166 0.67 1.520 0.56 4.22 0.965 0.555 166 1.26 4.168 0.56 14.07 3217 0.951 172 0.65 1.534 0.56 420 0.996 0.538 172 1.23 4206 0.56 14.01 3320 0.886 178 0.63 1.547 0.56 4.19 1.027 D.'r20 178 1.19 4243 0.56 13.96 3.424 0.819 184 0.62 1.560 0.56 4.17 1.058 0.502 184 1.17 4279 0.56 13.92 3.527 0.752 190 0.60 1.573 0.56 4.16 1.089 0.484 190 1:14 4.313 0.56 13,87 3.630 0.683 196 0.59 1.585 0.55 4.15 1.120 0.465 196 1.11 4.347 0.55 13.83 3.733 0.614 202 0.57 1.597 0.55 4.14 1.151 0.446 202 1.09 4.380 0.55 13/9 3.836 0.543 208 0.56 1.609 0.55 4.13 1.182 0427 208 1.06 4.412 0.55 13.75 3.940 0.472 214 0.55 1.620 0.55 4.11 1.213 D.407 214 1.04 4.443 0.55 1312 4.043 0400 220 0.54 1.631 0.55 4.10 1.244 0.387 220 1.02 4.473 0.55 13.68 4.146 0.327 226 0.53 1.642 0.55 4.10 1.275 0.367 226 1.00 4.502 0.55 13.65 4.249 0.253 232 0.52 1.652 0.55 4.09 1.306 0347 232 0.98 4.531 0.55 13.62 4353 0.179 238 0.51 1.663 0.54 4.08 1.337 0.326 238 0.96 4.560 0.54 13.59 4.456 0.104 244 0.50 1.673 0.54 4.07 1.368 0.305 244 0.94 4.557 0.54 13.56 4.559 0,0211 250 0.49 1.683 0.54 4.06 1.399 0284 250 0.92 4.614 0.54 13.54 4.662 -0.048 256 0.48 1.692 0.54 4.05 1.430 0263 256 0.91 4.641 0.54 13.51 4.765 -0.125 262 0:47 1.702 0.54 4.05 1.461 0241 262 0.89 4.667 054 13.49 4.869 -0.202 268 0.46 1.711 0.54 4.04 1.492 0219 268 0.88 4.692 0.54 13.47 4.972 -0.280 274 0.46 1.720 0.54 4.03 1.523 0.197 274 0.86 4/17 0.54 13.45 5.075 -0.358 280 0.45 1.729 054 4.03 1.554 0175 280 0.85 4/41 0.54 13.43 5.178 -0.437 286 0.44 1.738 0.54 4.02 1.584 0.153 286 0.83 4/65 0.54 13.41 5282 -0.516 292 0.43 1.746 0.54 4.02 1.615 0.131 292 0.82 4/89 0.54 1339 5.385 -0.596 298 0.43 1.755 0.54 4.01 1.646 0.108 298 0.61 4.812 0.54 1337 5.488 -0:676 304 0.42 1.763 0.53 4.01 1.677 0.086 304 0.80 4.835 0.53 13.35 5.591 -0.757 310 0.42 1.771 0.53 4.00 1.708 0.063 310 0.79 4.857 0.53 1334 5.694 -0,837 316 0.41 1.779 0.53 4.00 1.739 0.040 316 0.77 4.879 0.53 13.32 5.798 -0.919 322 0.40 1.787 0.53 3.99 1.770 0.017 322 0.76 4.901 0.53 13.30 5.901 -1.000 328 0.40 1.795 0.53 3.99 1.801 -0.007 328 0.75 4.922 0.53 1329 6.004 -1.082 334 0.39 1.802 0.53 3.98 1.832 -0.030 334 0.74 4.943 0.53 1328 6.107 -1.165 340 0.39 1.810 0.53 3.98 1.863 -0.053 340 0.73 4.963 0.53 13.26 6211 -1.247 346 0.38 1.817 0.53 3.97 1.894 -0.077 346 0.72 4.984 0.53 13.25 6314 -1.330 352 0.38 1.825 0.53 3.97 1.925 -0.101 352 0.71 5.004 0.53 13.24 6.417 -1.413 358 0.37 1.832 0.53 3,97 1.956 -0.124 358 0.70 5.023 D.53 13.22 6.520 -1.497 364 D.37 1.839 0.53 3.96 1.987 -0.148 364 0.69 5.043 0.53 13.21 6.623 -1.581 370 0.36 1.846 0.53 3.96 2..018 -0172 370 0.69 5.082 0.53 13.20 6/27 -1.665 Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (cubic IQ= 31,551 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft-) _ Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (acre -ft.) = 0.7243 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre -ft.) _ UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35. Released January 2015 75.147 1.7251 Cureton Detention.xlsx, Modified FAA 2119.2018.5:54 PM DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA, METHOD Project: Cureton Cryo Basin ID: Runoff Tri butary to the Detention Pond r Inflow and Outflow Volumes vs. Rainfall Duration 8 6 5 a 4- 4 E a 3 2 I 0 • • • • • • ■■■ ' • ' f 11 iJ ±O !-J C1 iJ 1 i~ _ •pp { •' iJ a 0 50 100 150 200 Duration (Minutes) P Minor Slam Inflow Volume Mnor SicrmOulflow Volume l4nor SicrmSforage Volume Major Sform Inflow Volume 250 300 350 s Major Slam Oulflcar Volume • Major Slorm Slorage Volume 400 UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35. Released January 2015 Cureton Detenban.xlsx, Modified FAA 211912018,5:54 PM i _ DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER wtraaiaw Project Cureton Front Range Gas Pliant Basin ID: TrLutaryTo Detention _tai 1r et* Cie n MINI r Example Zone Configuration (Retention Pond) Required Volune Calcuation Selected BfaP Type = :Watershed Area = Watershed Length = '::ralctshed Slope = 'Pietashed Irnparvicusriess = Percentage H}t!rdoyic Scil CYnup A. = Percentage Hydrolcgic Sal &cup B = Percentage Hydrolcgic Soil Grcups CC1 = Desired WOO/ Drain Time = EDB 2428 1.517 0.013 ,15.77".4, 40.0 acres n n,n percent percent percent percent hcurs ',JD -Detention, Version 3.07 (February 7017) Lccalieri feu 1 -hr Rainfall Depths = - City Hall .'hater Quality Capture Vclurne ('WQCV; = 0.351 acre-feet Opiiaial User Override E}Tess Urban Runoff Volume (ELRV; = 0.928 acre-feet 2-yr Runoff Volume (P1 = 0.85 in.; = 0.519 acre-feet inches 5-yr Runoff Volume (P1 = 1.13 in.; = 0.770 acre-feet inches 14-}r Runoff Velurne (P1 = 1.4 irk; = 1.191 acre-feet inches 25 2.r Runoff Volume (P1 = 1.84 in.; = 2142 acre-feet inches 50-yr Runoff Volume (P1 = 2.22 in.; = 1850 acre-feet inches 100-yr Runoff Volume (P1 = 2.66 in.; = 1823 acre-feet inches 5O0-yr RuriuiTVolurne (P1 = 3.68 in.; = 5.970 acre-feet inches r1; prorirnale 1-}r Detention Volume = 0.485 acre-feet Approrirria1e 5-}r Detention Volume = 0.723 acre-feet 1 -hr F'recipilatiorr Approxirnalre 10-yr De4ctlhrxx Volume = Approximate 25-}r Detention Volume = r'pprT.x.:irnate 60-}r Detection Volume = Approximate 1 CC -}r Detention Volume = Stage -Storage Calculation lu's 1 Volume (WQCV; = Zone 2 Volume (10 -year - Zcne 1; = Zrxie 3 Volume (100 -year - Zrxres 1 1.2; = Trial Detention Basin Volume = Initial Surcharge Volume (ISV; = Initial Surcharge Depth (ISD; = Total Available DeleriUon Depth (M:au = Depth cf Trickle Channel (Hr o; = Skye of Trickle Channel (Sic; = Sic:es cf Main Basin Sides (S,,,,;,,; = Basin Length-bWidth Ratio (Ri;,,ti.; = Initial Surcharge Area (Ar;,.) = Surcharge Volume Laiglh (Lry) = Surcharge Volume Width (W13,) = Depth cf Basin Flax' (Have) = Length of Basin Floor (Lr1or,R) = Width or Basin Floor (Wrtocri) = Area or Basin Floor ('ctorrr) = b'rciu me of Basin Flocr (VFtor4 = Depth of Main Basin (Hw;,ix) = Lengthy of Main Basin (L.: iH) = Width of Main Basin (Wiii,441 = Area cf Main Basin (r1,:, -.I41 = Vtolurrxe cf Main Basin ( V.: 31rJ = Calculated Total Basin Volume (V,„ 111) = 1.074 1.3% 1.576 1.558 0.351 0.723 0.884 1.558 46 0.40 2.26 0.42 0.041 4 4.85 115 10.7 10.7 0.58 597.9 131.3 78.5050 15214 0.86 604.8 138.1 83.545 69.275 1.958 acre -feel acre -feel acre-feet acre -feel acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet ti3 a ft n nil H:V ft a fl fl n nz nJ3 n n n ni2 n3 acre -feel 0.26 1.13 1.40 222 ass Depth Increment= 0.1 Il Stage - Storage Deseriptiorn Stage (n; Optional Override Stage (It; Length (n; ldidti (ft; 'area (V2; inlet :...7"/;-:-.) T. 'i "E. Area Ia."2; r;rea (acre; Volume ((1''3; 4•*lurne (ac -fl; Top of Micropool 0.00 10.7 10.7 115 0.003 tSV 0.40 10.7 10.7 115 0.003 45 0.001 0.50 10.7 10.7 115 0.003 5.6 0.001 0.60 10.7 10.7 115 0.003 68 0.002 0.70 10.7 10.7 115 0.003 79 0.002 0.80 10.7 10.7 115 0.003 SO 0.002 0.90 81.0 25.1 2035 0.047 157 0.004 100 181.4 45.8 8,299 0.191 639 0.015 1.10 281.8 66.4 18.702 0.429 1.:05 0.045 1.20 3822 87.0 31246 0.763 4.518 0.104 1.30 4826 107.6 51.530 1.192 8,742 0.201 1.40 583.0 128.2 74.754 1.716 15.042 0.345 Zone 1 (WQCV) 1.40 593.0 130.3 77.224 1.774 15.842 0.363• Floor 1.40 55&0 130.3 77.264 1.774 15.802 0.363 1.50 5516 132.0 79.006 1.814 222.883 0.525 1.60 5544 132.8 79.591 1.827 30.813 0.707 1.70 600.2 133.6 80.178 1.841 38.801 0.851 Zone 2 (10 -pear) 1.79 601.0 134.4 80.765 1.854 46.248 1.075 1.80 601.0 134.4 80.765 1.854 46.248 1.075 120 601.8 136.2 81.3.4 1.868 54.954 1.262 2.00 5016 126.0 81.945 1.881 63.119 1.449 2.10 5015 136.9 82-595 1.206 71169 1.557 2.20 664.3 137.7 83.128 1.910 80.4.8 1.847 Zone 3 (100 -}'ear) 2.26 604.8 138.1 81545 1.918 65.41=0 1.962 2.30 60' 11 138.5 83.723 1.923 88.807 2.029 2.40 505.9 139.3 84.378 1.537 97.215 2.232 2.50 606.7 140.1 84.975 1.951 105,682 2.426 2.60 607.5 140.9 85.573 1.224 114.210 2.622 2.70 6013,3 141.7 86.172 1.978 1222.797 2.819 2.80 6001 142.5 86.773 1.90 131.444 3.018 2.90 609.9 143.3 87.375 2.00,6 140.151 3.217 3.00 610.7 144.1 87.978 20120 148.919 3.419 3.10 611.5 144.9 88.582 2.034 157.747 3.621 3.20 612.3 145.7 89.188 1047 126.636 3.825 3.30 61'31 146.5 89.755 1061 175.585 4.031 3.40 613.9 147.3 90.403 2.075 1e4.5 95 4.238 3.50 614.7 148.1 91.013 1039 193.665 4.446 3.60 6155 148.9 91.624 2103 202.797 4.656 3.70 616.3 149.7 92.226 1117 211.920 4.867 3.80 617.1 150.5 91849 2.132 221.244 5.079 3.90 617.9 151.3 91464 2146 230.560 5.293 4.00 6181 152.1 94.060 2.160 22:9.937 5.503 4.10 619.5 152.9 94.597 2.174 249.376 5.725 4.20 620 3 153.7 95.316 2128 2.8.877 5.943 4.30 621.1 154.5 95.536 2.202 228.439 6.1 63 4.40 621.9 155.3 96.557 2.217 278.064 6.383 4.50 622 7 156.1 9 7.179 2 231 257.751 6.606 4.60 623.5 156.9 97.803 2.245 297.500 6.820 4.70 624.3 157.7 98.428 2.220 307.311 7.055 4.80 625 1 158.5 99.054 2274 317.186 7 282 4.90 625.9 159.3 99.681 1288 327.122 7.510 5.00 626.7 120.1 100.310 1303 337.122 7.722 5.10 627.5 160.9 100.940 2317 347024 7 970 5.20 6283 161.7 101.571 233.2 357.310 8203 5.30 529.1 162.5 102.204 12_45 267.45.3 3.437 5.40 529.9 153.3 102.828 Z251 377.751 6.572 5.50 530.7 11.4.1 103.473 1375 388.066 3.902 5.50 531.5 164.9 104.110 2.350 35'3.445 9.141 5.70 5323 155.7 104.747 2.446 410.3.888 9.367 5.80 52311 125.5 146.38x. 2.419 419.395 9.528 5.90 533.9 1673 105.027 2.424 429.955 9.871 5.00 534.7 158.1 105.658 1449 440.500 10.115 5.10 535.5 123.9 107.311 1424 451.299 10.350 5.20 526.3 159.7 107.955 1478 452.052 14207 5.30 537.1 170.5 113.601 2.4c,e 472.820 10.855 5.40 537.9 171.3 100.247 1508 4:33.782 11.105 5.50 5387 172.1 102.1325 2.523 494.740 11.358 5.50 522.5 172.9 110.544 2.528 505.752 11.611 5.70 540.3 113.7 111.195 1553 515.849 11.865 5.30 541.1 174.5 111.847 2.528 528.001 11121 520 641..+ 175.3 112.500 2.563 539.218 11379 7.00 5427 176.1 113.154 1593 550.501 11638 7.10 5435 175.9 113.810 15133 561.849 12298 7.20 544.3 177.7 114.467 2.528 573.253 11.150 7.30 6451 178.5 115.125 2.543 584.742 11424 7.40 5459 179.3 115.7 35 1658 515.288 11689 7.50 546.7 180.1 115.445 2.573 607.899 13.55 7.50 647.5 180.9 117.107 2.688 619.577 14.224 7.70 648.3 181.7 117.771 1704 531.321 14.493 7.80 549.1 182.5 118.435 1719 643.131 14.6754 7.90 549.9 183.3 119.101 1734 555.002• 150"37 8.00 550.7 184.1 119.768 2.750 625.951 15311 8.10 551.5 1842 120.437 2.765 578.952 15.537 8.20 5523 185.7 121.107 2.720 621.032 15254 3.30 5531 185.5 121.778 2.7:,6 703.183 16.143 8.40 553.9 187.3 122.450 2.311 715324 16.423 8.50 654.7 128.1 123.123 1327 727.573 11105 8.50 5555 188.9 123.7 56 1342 740.019 16.938 8.70 555.3 189.7 124.474 1858 752.433 11273 3.80 557.1 150.5 125.15;2 2.813 724214 17.550 8.90 557.9 191.3 125.820 1382 777.453 17.248 9.00 558.7 192.1 125.510 1504 750.020 18138 9.10 551.5 192.9 127.192 2.920 2x2.755 18429 9.20 660.3 193.7 127.874 2.926 815.518 18.722 9.30 551.1 154.5 128.556 1551 22"3 40 'L'J 19.015 9.40 551.9 155.3 129.243 1557 841.20 15.312 9.50 5617 155.1 129.929 2.2 3 3:4.189 15209 9.50 55°15 155.9 130.517 19599 857.215 19.509 9.70 564.3 197.7 131.305 3.014 880.312 24.209 LD-Delentirxi_v3.07-021018. xlsrn. Basin 2,2162018. 6:06 PM 1.84 DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER UD-Detention. Version 3.07 (February 2017) 680 i3ibutl -g- ea — 510 e 5440 9b/UU 65900 r to r= 3 170 52900 - - - 0 0.00 I 250 Length(Width(*) r 5.00 SUP (f4 —Area 7.50 111.0 0 (sq.*,) 5.0220 2266 0.755 0,007 2.50 5.00 age m.) 7.50 0.00 —Area (eau) —Veleme (ac#t) 20220 15.1.65 10110 5.055 0.000 10.00 VOIuma (ac -ft] LO-0elianlice •3.07-42101&xlsrn, Basin i 1iMt8,. 6:D& PT1 STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET Project: Cureton Front Range Gas Plant Basin ID: Tributaryto to Pond WQCV Design Volume (Input): Catchment Imperviousness, la = Catchment Area, A -= Depth at WQCV outlet above lowest perforation, H = Vertical distance between rows, h htimber of rows, NL = Orifice discharge coefficient, Co Slope of Basin Trickle Channel, S = Time to Drain the Port Watershed Design Information (Input): Percent Soil Type A = Percent Soil Type B = Percent Soil Type CID = Outlet Design Information (Output): 3 35.8 24.98 1 4.00 t00 0.50 0.004 40 0 3 97 percent acres feet inches ftIft hours �fu �fu Diameter of holes. ID = Number of holes per row, N = Heightot slot, H = Width of slot, tiN = Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV = Water Quality Capture Vokrne (WQCV) = Design Volume (WQCV 112Area a 1.2) Vol = Outlet area per row. A0 = Total opening area at each row based on user -input above, A0 = Total opening area at each row based on user -input above. A0 = 1.377 1 OR incits i rthes inches 0.215 watershed inches 0.447 acre-feet 0.537 acre-feet 1.49 squat irl.hes 1.49 square irches 0.010 square feet D 0 0 0 0 0 O o O 0 0 1 ' O 0 ryir O 0 o O 0 D O O O Perforated Plate Examples 7, Central Elevations of Rows of Holes In feet r Plow Row1 Row 2 Row3 Row Row5 Row6 Row7 Row8 Row9 Row10 Row11 Row12 Row13 Row14 Row15 Row16 Row17 Row18 Row19 Row20 Row21 Row22 Row23 Row23 4923.57 Collection Capacity far Each Row of Holes In cfs 4923.40 0.0000 0.00 4923.60 0.007 2 0.01 4923.80 0.0199 0.02 4924.00 0.0272 0.03 4924.20 0.0329 0.03 4924.40 0.0378 0.04 4924.60 0.0421 0.04 4924.80 0.0460 0.05 4925.00 0.0496 0.05 4925.20 0.0529 0.05 4925.40 0.0561 0.00 4925.60 0.0591 0.06 4925.80 0.0619 0.06 4926.00 0.0646 0.06 4926.20 0.0673 0.07 4926.40 0.0698 0.07 4926.60 0.0722 0.07 4926.80 0.0745 0.07 4927.00 0.076€3 0.08 4927.20 0.0790 0.08 #N/A #MIA MIA ON/A MIA - - - #N/A #NIA #MA #14/A MA #NIA MIA MIA #MIA #NIA. #MIA #NIA #NIA MA #N/A #NIA #NIA tiN/A #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #NIA MIA - - #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIYA, # hN A #N/A #N/A #11/A MA MIA #NIA #11/A #IVIA #NIA MIA #WA #N/A MIA #1,41A Ovemde Area Row 1 Override Area Row 2 Override Area Roy.' 3 Ove rrid e Area Row 4 Override Area Row 5 Override Area Rov.r 6 Override Area Row 7 Override Area Row 8 Override Area Row 9 Ovemde Area Row 10 Override Area Row 11 Override Area Row 12 Override Area Row 13 Override Area Row 14 Override Area Row15 Override Area Row 16 Override Area Row 17 Override Area Row18 Override Area Row 19 Override Area Row 20 Override Area Row 21 Ove rrid e Area Row 22 Override Area Row 23 Override Area Row 24 Copy of IAD-Detention_v2.35.xis, WQCV 2,"20!2018.6:36 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET Project: Cureton Front Range Gas Plant Basin ID: Tributary to Pond I STAGE -DISCHARGE CURVE FOR THE WQCV OUTLET STRUCTURE Stage (feet, elev►.) 4927.50 0 4927.00 4926.50 4926.00 4925.50 4925.00 4924.50 4924.00 4923.50 4923.00 00 011 0.ki2 0.03 0.04 045 0.06 017 048 01 Discharge (cfs) 9 J Copy of 1D -Detention v2.35.xls, WQCV X0/2018.6:36 PM Samuel Engineering Cureton Front Range, LLC Cureton Front Range Gas Plant 8537 County Road 51, Keenesburg CO Project 17227-01 Cureton Detention Interval Elevation., Ft. Area, Fe Volume, CF Description 0.00 4923.20 0 0.00 0.20 4923.40 1775 177.50 0.60 4923.80 9553 2443.10 1.00 4924.00 14 770 4875.40 1.40 4924.40 23184 12466.20 1.52 4924.52 24756 15294.66 WQCV 1.60 4924.80 30645 23106.20 1.75 4924.95 33102 28030.66 10-Yr. Storage 1.80 4925.00 34145 29560.53 2.20 4925.40 35455 43480.53 2.60 4925.80 36799 57931.33 2.80 4926.00 37480 65359.23 3.13 4926.33 38292 77861.61 100-Yr. Storage 3.80 4927.00 40985 104419.40 Spillway 4.8 (Freeboard) 4928.00 44380 147101.90 Cureton Detention 4928.00 II _ O ',jr 4926.00 IN _ Ct C) W 4924.00 a _ 4922.00 0 Of a a 15000 30000 45000 60000 75000 90000 105000 120000 135000 150000 Volume, CF Detention Pond Outlet Project Description Friction Method Solve For Manning Formula Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Normal Depth Diameter Results Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Average End Depth Over Rise Normal Depth Over Rise Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope SubCritical 0.013 0.01055 ft/ft 1.88 ft 2.00 ft 24.99 3.06 5.27 0.58 0.97 1.76 93.8 0.01097 8.17 1.04 2.91 0.81 24.99 23.23 0.01221 ft3/s ft2 ft ft ft ft ftlft ft/s ft ft ft3/s ft31s ft/ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 0.00 93.75 Infinity Infinity 1.88 1.76 0.01055 0.01097 ft ft/s ft/s ft ft ftlft ftlft 2(2012018 6:04:12 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster 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 1 Cureton re t o n Detention O ve rf l ow Project Description Solve For Input Data Discharge Headwater Elevation Crest Elevation Tailwater Elevation Crest Surface Type Crest Breadth Crest Length Gravel 71.75 4928.00 4927.00 4922.00 ft3Is ft ft ft 5.00 ft Results Crest Length Headwater Height Above Crest Tailwater Height Above Crest Weir Coefficient Submergence Factor Adjusted Weir Coefficient Flow Area Velocity Wetted Perimeter Top Width 23.92 1.00 -5.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 23.92 3.00 25.92 23.92 ft ft ft US US ft2 ft/s ft ft 2/20/2013 6:40:59 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster 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 1 A 1 B 1 C 1 D E 1 F 1 G H MATCHLINE N 90300 SEE SHEET CUR 1 -CE -402 UMRS 2 I • \ Y \ '-� \ l m \ •� `• \ `+ � - `OPERT$P NOTES _ N90300NE\ SED.LOGO I \ I es \ a \n�\\ �"I'f \\\ `\\, o o I \... I•••••• �• • ' • • •C.•�,655952 • • •MATCf1UNE \y (t\ �MATCHUNE 1.654929\ N 90 300 t\ 15' 150 N 90200 \ N 300a\}t--- \ E 54 932 • •} • Y..: t . \ \ \ \• , • , •\ A. \• • . • , •\• N 90 300 6 55 914 • I . L ',I • OMATCHLINE N 90 300 - E5591J DENOTES HORIZONTAL \ \ 14 I ` \ CLEARING 6 VERTICAL. CONTROL 184E \•\•••SILT \ .. .. • FENCE LIMITS (PROFILE GRADE) ID I EN \ r' • • \• . N90265 , N 90 268 1 HENRYLYNIRRIGATIONDITCH u• 4 •..\,•E55914. , REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING u \`• rROUGHGRADINGOPERATIONS 655917TO II \ I \ \ \ �\ ' • �vp - CLFJIRING \ \i \ • 2% 1OR��t4 '\ IlnT7FOR2S \ \:.�, /I LIMITS \I•\'• '� • �I 1t e6 - .h t2TuJS5 N 90100 ��•. .\.•.•. �•. NI90 IBS , \ I O l E 55 • 948 t\ v • •`. B' COOT CLASS BROAD 2300 U SED. LOGS ��-`e Lei \ �• \, E SS 943 I 30 \ \ , , ,\ �I BASE COMPACTED TO 95% MOISTURE CONDITIONED \ % ,' 4939 �� - \ • • . ` . ' SILT FENCE. s . ;� I SPD OR RECYCLED ASPHALT LIMBS OF DISTURBANCE % I a I G 0 O\ I J CJ \ \ \ \• \ \ 0\ • . • • . \ I I `•' COMPACTED SUBGRADE GEOTEX 250ST (OR EQUAL) PER \ 1 1 \ h i I v } ;: \ _ \ \ \ \• , • �' ' _ . • • s,` . • / al �I II FENCE FENCE )CAL GE SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS \ ` ; \ I I �\ \ \ . • • • . • .9\ I +p A 0' WIDE ACCESS ROAD N 90000 \ i i _ ►i♦� � m \ \ \. 'ti ,Ili` SCALE' NONE SED. LOG I I i \ • • �• • • r \ . \ '1 )SILT \ N 89 854 \\ I \ \\ \ . • • p . . ••\• ff� PROPERTY BOUNGARY 1/4 654852 1 \ \ vp3\• •' II f1��i I EROSIONCONTROLLEGEND I •.• • •�• CLEARING I \ LIMITS \ \ N 89 i \ SED. LOG 857 N 89 857 \ \ \ \ \ tom-`•- \ "� rI LIMITS OF Vii' WA A IUNLNL'It WASHOUT ItMPOfURY I ) 39 J DISTURBANCE • E54850 \ ► \! ® �L SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (TEMPORARY) \ E 54932 1 \ .' 89900SED. LOG �\ .. ( JJJN SED. LOG CLEARING - ,+\ ailN - PERMANENT SEEDING (INCLUDES N 894 830 LIMITS U ` _ EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS) 89 8 0 E 54 ` 830N 89 857 il ` 1 \\ 1 '-- t 1p.......1Q E 54 783 E 55 013 h• • \ \ I \ ` \ , I �' ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER CLEARING Z O \ _\ \ \ I CLEARING LIMITS LIMITS N 89 • 823 V ••�• IRRIGATION \ ii A�' \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ 0 �- '. \ .,; r I +-r--•r ® SILT FENCE (TEMPORARY) _ N 89 823 1' 19 PUMP SYSTEM 1�' \ \ - \ '~` t -0,C1-4-,/2's 0 OUTLET PROTECTION (PERMANENT) _ E 757 E 54 829 1,1 (BVOIERS) 1 \ \ \ \\I \ :� \\ • •• \ a �1 - \ \ • '- I ! . �I RIP -RAP RUNDOWN (PERMANENT) N 89800 . 7 _ - - OP ti �� •� i 1 APPROXIMATE DENOTES B'ROADBASE SURFACING \ \ LOCATION f 3'W x 8'L x 1.5' \ % TOP OF OD v \ K �J O , TYPE L RIP RAP OVER 1/4 \ \ \ ri, DENOTES 4• GRAVEL SURFACING ■`0OBOTTOMOFPOND 1 ELEVATION 4W5.00 } _ • '\` °�, II SILTGENERAL 4 • F CE LEGEND BOTTOMOFPOND ArD 1\ \4 N B9 7I1\ELEVATION 4944,50 \ \ MAJOR \',;-:. E55981"-5115— EXISTING CONTOUR N 89700 \ I �a ('",'I I \ SILT FENCE EXISTING ;v.- �� — 11 ) I 3 ° � )J). N.�� \ I „ ' I! _ .' N 89 721 •••••� 5110 •� PROPOSED CONTOUR OPOMAJOR CONTOUR \ \ I 1 - .\ _ -- \ i • 5112 R99 - - E 55959 — — PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR �' IRRIGATION POND �- \ \ SEDIMENT BASIN 3 \ \elliklin\ 1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE \ \ • `ii • I TOP EL BOTTOM . 4949.0 EL . i TO 4945.00 1 \ _ ♦ •N ACC `_•, .-_ s 4TOPOFCUT4948.00 + �•�•� T OE OF FILL CLEARING LIMITS 1� I 1I sro \ \ a \ -_ !I — - - — - - . PROPERTYNES N 89800 I .� y , .....01., - I .' - 120' •- 18' RCP O BERM SED. LOG • - n' \'\ - \ • ^' 1.0% EACH SLOPE WITH END II a Ii \ \• \ r \.o4 `...F`:� • I- IFES ABBREVIATIONS 4 760 • I'I \ \ \ !P \ wi \ }A •� e +) I 1N-89580 b qq • 111/ b' I It �I I • l / I9yS I ' \ \ \ faC \ �� ryp • \ \ \ \ .a1-'' Sr. °.j �. ',I� : • • 1 - � END FENCE SILT BTM BOTTOM CL CENTERLINt E FASTING I {p� N 89500 . �: INUIT I PIPING 1 ' kill ,' 1 a 5 --+�-• \ \ \ \ \ \ \,►�+, 4,i1 I OP E SS I 964 EL ELEVATION HP HIGH RDINATES �HAVE IBEEN TRUNCATED. • ••-• LP LOW POINT CLEARING LIMITS N 89 559 E 54 757 A / / I I , `. I I �: ® � YY■■Y■` ` 1,'L` 1 1`` ' �d .'� \ l 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ pv • YW r • TYPE \ , MIRAFI 8'L L MP MID POINT NORTHING ADO OCOORDINATES ■ 1.5' N NORTHING RIP RAP OVER AND 3,200,000 TO ALL 140N FABRIC EAS TING COORDINATES. EXAMPLE: \\ \I I BEGIN SILT • _ _ N 6700 . N 1267000 _ t �E� ` ��—�~ __ ��a�41_E . 1150 E 3211500 CLEARING `"� —__ 1 SED LOG • \ ��`\� � +>—_: , •_;�:..:.r.,sec p�.a'ri LIMITS I 1 i��•7 "' S,j�� `'�--yr N 89 448 ` �� _ ,, �p itz�- i A :��.-�.•.�.. SLR. LOG N 8940 I N 89 1 , ' 'S•iL'T.$`�1�,►� A� -- l 375 \ t SED. LOG\ �\ ice- �,.��.-. r+c ♦ A i�� —� N 89 448 E 55 928 Preliminary I E 54 872 I N 89 378 a — ..ii ct,c 4r -� I 1 ; \ -\` — _ --c—• , \ E 5S 928 I ' Not For Construction EXISTING FENCE ' t PROPERTY 1 E 54 875 \ I \ N \ 1 ```v _ \ \ N. SED. LOG \ I 1 ' I I CORNER N 89 372 + • I SED. LOG N 89 378 \. \ \\ N. N �9r S SED. LOGS \ \ N \ N. 494 _ N 89 347 ® E 55 928 a '1 \ ' I 1 PROPERTY CORNER 654870 �' 654878• N. - - N89317- • �__ __ `\ \ I •9,`,,1[J •, 7 .• -- _ _ _ ! �_ _ �_W�. -w,.w-�� _ _ - - - . NG E SS 975 t ' PROPERTY m CLEARING m m / rn - - -- _ __ m. __ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE -•'m m m -- LIMITS m I �-4. .�m STN N 89300 CORNER LIMITS r. u, N to _- u' - .n Any'' U, N 89 344 N N - le lam. a. _ " °` g E 54 873 o g 8`rlii PROPERTY BOUNDARY J g g E 55 931 o 9 t5. 1v w �r s E 54 870 ..c7. SGT. r - 50 �i )� n�.v.,na,40se tsIertra. ►..,.++..+r.r+..r ,.x. 1'.50 .', on... CURETON MIDSTREAM ,I CURETON CURETON TIRE PROJECT NUMBER ewe rti+•.. Sty ,.. P.Pw.ran rti .r r•nr. ••rW.•A. •OLDEBIUWO 07lONII ® MIDSTR[AAI ... .... WELD COUNTY. CO FJ�1 CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT 17227 y * v..et P...:.a•. u...,.. tl.dvr, rrY, . reran n. tIiLLOGG 02/C9/iB .,F. 4"-""� ."' „ror. s"air B` MAS A ISSUED •0* PSrnrr 02/21118 MAS flock - .-l-y-_ CIVIL GENERAL Samuel Engineering DRAWING NUMBER \Y<NATa•rn.a 4r W Pr...ry ,,,vsso- .• csr _uc.onA• I ,yy E y ! ; .. .•.<•u .a. .... . 3 !il 4 a• .r.•,.,.. MR .. .,..n.. ,bPronJ,SWa1Wn, r'•"•" REFERENCE DRAWINGS REVISIONS REVISIONS ••••--•.. NOr. Cowan P"se'ta "'M'r's “+..,eeavrP. OD ret+• Par m.tt. GYY CUR1-CE-401 T A I 2 3 1 \ \ \ \ ` PROPERTY BOUNDARY \ \\ \\ \\ 1\ GENERAL NOTES `\ \\ \ \ \ \� CLARING \ N191 0 5 L1 \ N. \ ` sp \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ `� ',r 1 \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ POND OADSIDEF01101 \ 4'W x 10' L x 1.5' TYPE L RIP RAP \ GEOT E LE FABRIC WITH FES ! 1) DYER i I. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED GRADE. ` 2. TYPICAL SWALES HAVE BM : IV SIDE SLOPES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3, REFERENCE DRAWING CUR1•CE-603 FOR OUTLET STRUCTURE AND TRICKLE CHANNEL DETAILS. \ E 55 I 1 \ \ , \ BEGIN CLEARING 1 4. INCORPORATE THIS DRAWING WITH THE FOLLOWING DRAWINGS: CURT -CF -200 SERIES FOR GRADING PLANS , t I 1 -- 1 - 1 \ LIMITS CUR1-CE-603-602 FOR THE DRAINAGE PLAN. LEARINk r , - �� \• \ 91 059_\ _ N 55914 E 55 914 I I .P S. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR L HITS f SE D. LOG -"'"^ ,.'� TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO ENSURE THAT 811 AND CURETON SITE PERSONNEL ARE CONTACTED 1 N 90 977 /r N91 072 \ ` - _- _ /PRIOR •✓ \ - - �..�..�..- - '.1 TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. CAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN DURING ALL E%UVATION OF SOIL E 4 923 �- �q _ _ --� \ - -..a BEGIN �� END CLEARING AND FOUNDATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. CONTACT ENGINEER IF THERE ARE CONFLICTS. rrr E SS 017 _._____1_r - _ 1� _ ,rf r .jam._ :__.-0,..,,,i �[y�. _ _w.. 3 �s"t�. SED. LOG rt' LIMITS 01 - - ' • ,1 `L�Y �wv�'� N 91 055 �� N 91 036 6. THE MAIORIT`I OF THE SITE GRAVEL WILL BE INSTALLED AFTER EQUIPMENT IS SET AND FINAL GRADING IS r I�y 1 - __!Y ._qq (.2. . i0 �wi �lr _- "� ,� y COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR i5 TO COORDINATE WITH CURETON PERSONNEL FOR ALL GRAVEL INSTALWTION `1 J ,•-r�,I •t,E SS 914 ) 1 E Sg g3 7 1 • )TIMING. - DETENTION POND \ ~� t THE FOG SF \ ® DEIGN FOR DETAIL d1R1•LE_603 VOLUME -• 1.98AF,END SEE DRAWING``� 1 \ (0,1/4\11, �`"w II FENCE SILT 7. CONTRACTOR IS TO SUBMIT A GRADATION SAMPLE TO CURETON PRIOR TO PLACING GRAVEL MATERIAL. CURETON PERSONNEL WILL DETERMINE SIZE OF GRAVEL TO BE USED. USE r MINUS CRUSHED GRANITE FOR THE SITE BENCH AREAS FOR BID PURPOSES AND PLACE AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. N 90 375 \ \_ _ \ \ 1 N 91 036 1F E 54 9* J \ r \ ` L�) E 5 914 B. PERIMETER SILT FENCE IS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO AlY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL y p y ' 94 �O�'�� i R MEASURES CAN BE INSTALLED AFTER ROUGH GRADING AND DRAINAGE IS COMPLETE. SI 14.' i, ry v //� 4925 �� 9. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SILT FENCE OR SILT FENCE CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SEDIMENT �- \ \ 1 \ �� / \ OUTLIgT 5TgUCTU. \ \\ _ Pp .t� I Ii CONTROL LOGS PROVIDING EROSION CONTROL IS MAINTAINED. + 10. AN APPROVED PORTABLE CONCRETE WASHOUT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAIL SHOWN ON ta \ N. \ \ ` \ Y • • •�' O I THIS DRAWING AND DRAWING CURI-CE-402. SEE SHEET CURL -CE -4O2 FOR GENERAL LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS AND 1 ROAD SECTION. • 1 1 \ \ N. ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •`\ \ �- \\ \ O�� Ir(II I`t'1,�1`�M 1 11. FOR BERM AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS REFERENCE THE LANDSCAPE PLANS PREPARED BY NORRIS DESIGN 11 NOTES • •_ I j \ \ \ N. \ - \ \ �\ \ �_ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ 1 TRICKLE \ CHANNEL \\ g9zq \�\. q9�s III 11�•••�TTT�"'' rt,�,III J•I 1.1 I I` , I. FOR SITE PLAN AND LOCATION INFORMATION REFERENCE DRAWING CURI•CE-103 FOR CIVIL SITE PLAN AND LADIES. `I CUR1-CE-601 & 602 FOR DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLANS AND NOTES. 2. EROSION CONTROL BMPS ON THIS DRAWING ARE SHOWN LARGER THAN ACTUAL SIZE FOR CLARITY. 3. PERMANENT SEEDING AND MULCHING WILL BE REQUIRED OUTSIDE SECURITY FENCING ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS II \ \ _ \ \ \ \ I \ _ \ \ `�' 'Cil 10 it I I� NOT RECEIVING GRAVEL OR ROAD BASE DURING CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO URBAN DRAINAGE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT STANDARDS VOL III. - MINEIllea •--+ I I S. THE RECEIVING WATERS FOR THE �� SITE ARE BOX ELDER CREEK AND THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. J%fj. a �I r r I. \ ^ �� \ IDjl 1 r 6. SITE AREA AND AREA OF DISTURBANCE FOR THIS SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 28.73 ACRES. Y/•\ 7. WORK THESE DRAWINGS WITH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THIS SRE.1 E54 \\, \'-11I. 4 -�-�' - (`�GRUBBING NOTES • \ _1. � ALL VEGETATION AND ORGANIC MATERIAL I5 TO 8E REMOVED AS DEFINED 8V THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON T+IIS DRAWING. CLEARING LIMITS ARE ESTIMATES AND THE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONFIRM WITH THE ONSITE CONSTRUCTION � \\�9 �� j' \ \~�',',' r I •, ,yMATERIAL MANAGER TOR FINAL CLEARING LIMITS. 3. THE DEPTH OF TOPSOIL AND ORGAN[C MATERIAL IS APPROXIMATELY 4". THE CONTRACTOR IS TO REMOVE ALL ORGANIC PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 1 }t ,T ' �• \\ , II+�) _ • - •1 1 .'.'. �I ' 4. THE ESTIMATED CLEARING AND GRUBBING QUANTITY SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING AT 4- AVERAGE DEPTH IS :5,450 CUBIC YARDS. • ` •. 1 IBt ••- • \ ' :71i, OE ' S. [N AREAS INSIDE OF THE FENCE LINE, WHERE GRUBBING IS NOT PERFORMED THE CONTRACTOR IS TO MOW OR CUT \ ', ' ,• �• '• ••� • i (}+�� 1 EXISTING VEGETATION. - _ u .\% \ I �� tS,�' I.' •\1':.. ;.:.:\�.:.:.\�•.'. I�j��' T EROSION EROSION CONTROL LEGEND • •1 _ ONO ` \ 1 �f 190\ CWA I. LIMITS 0 I 1 n \, 1 , , �■� .\ . • . ,\ • ' , , • , ' I \ \ y; CONCRETE WASHOUT (TEMPORARY) 1• I� a a, • s n , \ '��i CLEARING LIMITS EQUATION - COORDINATES MATCHLINE _ 0 �, \ SCL SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (TEMPORARY) ) N 90 3C0 v e > - \''_'' • • ' ••, ' , '•• LI 1 I,�„ O N 90300 MATCHLINE HAVE BEEN TRUNCATED. ADD 1,200,000 TO ALL PERMANENT E54929 ' I •' SEEDING (INCLUDES NORTHING COORDINATES \— \ V. 7 \�• „I E 55 917 ✓':::::;i QEROSION CONTROL BLANKETS)' 'Ii 0\ 1 - C -➢ ` a I - - • ' ' \. ' ' ' \ F AND 3,200,000 TO ALL ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPERI FANG SED.LOG ,• \ a\ 1 �• ' \• ' • ' ' • y • s ' . . . • \• SILT FENCE O PROPERTY • MATCHLINE 0 C000.DINATE5. EXAMPLE:..' _, FENCE 1 r' \' 9 .P ' r • \ MATCHLINE I N (TEMPORARY\ SILT 90 30C_ ® 1N 67000 = N 1267000 MATCHLINE .. �; _.•— //• • 1.)• •.+ 9 I l\, \ ‘11\ / ' \ N 90 300: E 11500 w E 3211500 I .o+rot •.`• •- . 1[AA\• ' I E, 5j5 952 0 OUTLET PROTECTION (PERMANENT) •/ E S4 932 A V g- Y E F -\iiyjj ` . ` • •-\:• ,'2\ \_.\* 4• \ \ E 55 9.14 J(' MATCHLINE N 90300 SEE SHEET CUR1-CE-402 0 RIP -RAP RUNDOWN (PERMANENT) Preliminary DENOTES 8" ROADBASE SURFACING Not For Construction `• • 1 l DENOTES 4" GRAVEL SURFACING T i'"/••• VTC VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL I 811 _ _ LOC LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION NORTH . -- IP 0 '' a SEDIMENT BASIN 9-P. -1� ^ SCALE: 1' _ SO KM+may SOUL et m CHECK DAM Call bin pap as "a w_rw.hw.4Mw.w •_• Own* S—•a.w . 1• _ SC' •.� ,•,.., , CURE ION MIDSTREAM CURETON Wfl[�TH[LRI m -m,• WELD COUNTY, CO MIDSTREAM TITLE PROJECT NUMBER �rcp�, rw .w..owr.. .n:A.HILDEBRANO ULC5/IB CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT CIVIL GENERAL EROSION CONTROL P1AN SHEEP 1 OF 2 17227 wenCooffet. A" k.,•r wl...w. w m.r. ." H. KELLOGG D1/C6/te eftelamm.N.M '.. W N NUMB R ••••10 . P.. .w M,wr Pasro ewm BP MAST A ISSUED FOR PERMIT DLD5/111 a. —•— I _-/__/_ Samuel Engineering M. r..,x a..�w.•,.•. - - ..mow._w,,,,•„,...,,„,.,..... 9 Pl 4Y Z:EVISIONS - •,. CUR1-CE-402REFERENCE _ A �wr.._��..w DRAWINGS 3 _i iFVS10v5 .,., �P`°'""�"✓ COWiJ•%a hrw, lW.Tn,q.P mw .mevrP CO Wm r.: xunR...m QCURETON MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan rl J Communication Plan USR17-0065 c9 URETON MIDSTREAM 518 17,n Street Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT Weld County, Colorado BURETUN MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan Communication Plan USR17-0065 OURETUN MIDSTREAM 518 17th Street Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT Weld County, Colorado DURELL '1/4V MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan Table of Contents CURETON MIDSTREAM LLC ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. FRONT RANGE GAS PROCESSING PLANT ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT COMMUNICATION PLAN .. 2 I. COMMUNICATION PLAN OVERVIEW 2 I I . KEY MESSAGES 2 III. COMMUNICATION PLAN . 3 IV. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION 3 V. ESTABLISH OPEN CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION 4 I Qm OURETUN MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan Front Range Gas Plant Communication Plan I. Communication Plan Overview A. Purpose Communication can be described as the exchange of information. Cureton Midstream's Front Range Gas Plant Project, ("Project") is committed to providing and maintaining several vehicles for communicating with all stakeholders identified with the Project. The purpose of the communication plan is to create a framework for communication with our neighbors and key stakeholders and receive their feedback. B. Audiences The plan primarily addresses two types of audiences; neighbors and residents within 1 -mile of the proposed site location and key stakeholders (elected officials, emergency responders, and other community members). This Plan is used to identify project stakeholders, create key messages, implement delivery methodologies, and to ensure frequent and consistent information about the project to our stakeholders. C. Important Strategies and Considerations a. Keep communications simple b. Listen to our stakeholders c. Provide timely updates d. Communicate early and often e. Communicate face-to-face f. Train project team g. Develop relationships in the community I I . Key Messages The Project: A. Provides safe and reliable energy solutions B. Listens to our neighbors, employees, and customers to improve our business and solve common concerns C. Supports the local businesses D. Uses proven best practices in all aspects of siting, constructing, and operating its facilities 2 Qm OURETUN '1/4V7 MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan III.Communication Plan Our objective is to ensure that all potential stakeholders are informed of our intentions relative to the proposed Project in a timely manner. The Plan has the following objectives: A. Identify key stakeholders a. Neighbors b. Elected officials c. Emergency responder groups d. Agencies e. Local businesses B. Establish Open Channels of Communication C. Keep Stakeholders Informed D. Receive Input and Feedback E. Support the Local Communities IV. Stakeholder Identification A. to e o # er ' enti 'cation Identify Method: Individuals Expected Results: Open Communication Ongoing g g Responsible: Project Consultants Project Project Outcome: Ongoing g g Timeline: Team Team/ b. Identify Officials Open Communication Ongoing Project Consultants Ongoing Team/Project c. Create Spreadsheet Open Communication Ongoing Project Consultants Ongoing Tracking Team/Project Qm OURETUN MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan d. and Names Solicit Additional in Feedback Meetings Open Communication Ongoing Project Consultants Ongoing Team/Project e. Returned Received Update List Mail When is Open Communication. Ongoing Project Consultants Ongoing Team/Project f. Regularly Maintain List Open Communication Ongoing Project Consultants Ongoing Team/Project V.Establish Open Channels of Communication A. Open Channels of Communication Method: a. Meetings Face -to -Face Expected Open Communication Results: Timeline: Ongoing Responsible: Project Outcome: Ongoing Team/Consultants b. Project Email Address Specific Open Communication Nov. 14, 2017 Ongoing c. Project Website Open Communication Nov. 14, 2017 Ongoing d. Project Specific Open Communication Nov. 14, 2O17 Ongoing Toll -Free Number e. Project Facebook for Within Residents 1 -Mile Group Open Communication Dec. 18, 2017 Ongoing f. Meeting Informal Local Open Communication Nov. 4, 2017 Input received g. Open House Nov. 14, 2017 Input received h. Meetings Regular Update Dec. 18, 207 Jan. 30, 2018 Mailings As Needed B. Project Information materials Qm OURETUN MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan Messaging and materials about the Project include: a. Printed handouts b. Purpose and need c. General project overview d. Environmental stewardship, safety, construction process, landscaping, mitigation for sound and light e. Timeline —as proposed in the filings for completing the Project f. Presentation Storyboards for use at the Open House and subsequent meetings g. Website h. Map of the proposed location of the Project I. Information on Community Open House j. Information on public hearings k. Links to partner company websites, Weld County, Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Colorado Department of Public Health& lth& Safety C. Keep Stakeholders Informed The Project uses a variety of contact methods to keep the information and dialogue open and flowing. These include face-to-face meetings, phone calls, or correspondence (e-mail and letter) as appropriate. Detail: • Personal visits and meetings with neighbors within 1/2 -mile of the proposed site • Informal Local Meetings Information Table with Project materials at public locations Event held Nov. 4, 2017 at Hudson Lockers in Hudson, CO • Open House for residents and stakeholders held Nov. 14, 2017 at the Southeast Weld County Fairgrounds o Printed and mailed invitation letter was sent to all residents and property owners within 1 -mile of the proposed site location "Station" style used for Open House with each information station staffed by subject matter experts to answer question and provide details One-on-one conversations with attendees 5 Qm OURETUN MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan o Input from attendees received and incorporated into the Project plans • Landscaping plans • Light and sound mitigation plans • Additional Community Meetings o Dec. 18, 2017 -Project update meeting followed by a Q&A. Input received from this meeting was incorporated into the project. o Jan. 30, 2018 -Project update meeting followed by a Q&A Project Contact Information The Project operates and monitors a toll -free phone number (1-833 CUR ETON (287-38O6), e- mail address (info@curetonmidstream.com), that enables stakeholders to obtain additional project information and provide input. This project contact information is printed on all Project materials, included on the Project web site. D. Receive Input and Feedback Receive Input and Feedback Method: Meetings Expected Open Communication Results: Timeline: Ongoing Responsible: Outcome: Input received Team/Consultant s b. Comment Cards Open Communication Nov. 2017 14, Input received c. Address Project Email Open Communication Nov. 14, 2017 Input received d. Number Project -Free Open Communication Nov. 14, 2017 Input received Toll e. Page Within Project for 1 -Mile Facebook Residents Open Communication Nov. 14, 2017 Input received Individual f. Project Initiated Meetings Open Communication Ongoing Input received E. Support Local Community The Project uses Weld County and Denver area vendors and suppliers as much as possible and appropriate. This includes: • Food Vendors Qm OURETUN MIDSTREAM Front Range Gas Plant Cureton Front Range LLC Communication Plan • Printing Project Materials • Meeting Venues • Project Design and Mitigation Firms • Offices • Employment F. Next Steps The Project plans to keep its neighbors and stakeholders informed of project progress by holding additional meetings, providing website updates, keeping the Facebook Group current and informational mailings as needed. Planned Meetings: • Mar. 2018 • Jun. 2018 • Oct. 21O8 Additional meetings and updates using the available communication vehicles will be implemented as needed. Prior to the planned meetings letters and emails will be sent to an updated list of stakeholders to invite and notify them about the meeting. The meeting notices will be posted on the website. Materials provided at future meetings will be made available via email, the Facebook Group, or website as appropriate. Emergency Response plans specific to the Project are being developed and will be part of the operational readiness of the facility. Ongoing updates, mock drills, and contact with appropriate agencies will continue throughout the life of the Project. Meetings will be scheduled with Emergency Responder groups and Fire Districts prior to operations of the facility. Input from those meetings and contacts will be incorporated into the Emergency Response Plans. Safety Data Sheets, formerly known as Material Safety Data Sheets will be kept onsite and made available on the facility website once the Project is operational. Additional communication vehicles will be used as need to meet the needs of the stakeholders and the Project. 7 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, Co 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 February 20, 2018 Cureton Front Range, LLC Front Range Gas Plant 8537 County Road 51 Keenesburg, CO, 80643 RE: Proposed septic tank and leach system for the Cureton Front Range Gas Plant control room. Samuel Engineering intends to design a Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) to support a gas plant control room that will have approximately 18 employees. The system design is estimated to require a 1000 -gallon tank and 1000 square foot leaching field, trenches or Quick -4 type chambers depending on the percolation test results. Percolation testing for the proposed leach field location will be performed by Terracon Consultants at a date to be determined. The OWTS design will be completed by a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer. Mark A. Skelskey, P.E. Engineering ♦ Project Controls ♦ Estimating ♦ Construction Management Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway. Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 303.714.4800 Storm Drainage Facilities OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51 KEENESBURG, CO LOCATED IN PART OF THE NE4 OF SECTION 19. T2N, R64W OF THE 6TH PM. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PREPARED FOR: CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC (Owner and Developer) PREPARED BY: SAMUEL ENGINEERING, INC. 8450 EAST CRESCENT PARKWAY, SUITE 200 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 FEBRUARY 2018 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 30 3.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 308.714.4800 Storm Drainage Facilities OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC FRONT RANGE GAS PLANT 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51 KEENESBURG, CO LOCATED IN PART OF THE NE4 OF SECTION 19, T2N, R64W OF THE 6TH PM, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PREPARED FOR: CURETON FRONT RANGE, LLC (Owner and Developer) PREPARED BY: SAMUEL ENGINEERING, INC. 8450 EAST CRESCENT PARKWAY, SUITE 200 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 FEBRUARY 2018 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 308.714.4800 I. Introduction This operations and maintenance manual is for the owner of a 60MMSCFD cryogenic natural gas processing plant to properly operate and maintain a detention pond to control stormwater runoff from the gas plant site. I I . Location and Access The site is located on a 73.5 -acre parcel that is north and west of the intersection of Weld County roads 18 and 51 south of Keenesburg Colorado. Access to the site will be from County Road 51. Storm water from the site will be directed into a 1.97 -acre-foot (design volume) detention pond that discharges onto the open agricultural land. The discharge from the pond will flow overland into Finch Creek that outfalls to the Beebe Draw, which flows to the southwest and discharges at Barr Lake. 2 3 4 A G. F C H -- +■aaul - �� yr , NORTH 7° ! 1- ,1 11 YA :...I.. , SECTION if TOMO+ 2 1432T RAMIE WIVES!"■Y `�� ( I - - I -' Ilrl _ _ ' 'Iiiiimosid , • t i II • L 1_,__._.:1I_:,i:1, Er ■ l l . 1.11111.10 * II: I ' IP Cs. - , 11019:� 'm II moll NE I em.R�i1i•.R mi a'R7ll1 '_ 7 F.. 4 ..� l•�i°.I. ... ,IRE . "1 .-.UflCi:M NI7t:T2ihM JUI4L1E l�R :711p�.�r►y .. n WE-�•CO&fl, CC IA 11lfJf19 R.I. torwrh. �rff44.... MrNrovq.•wgw ,.n.lT�.-;I 11u Ilr•:Il [LIptS(Ml fidCilY1 RANGE, FWC POMO& GAB PLANT CIVIL GINERN. Y..iNI"Y rA= Y+�,� �Ji67 �N .a 1� ..�. a.. .y r W W Wady r.w cwN�r1! ii In *n rte "r' n rye. ..I.Y. .Lb ""4 ..� 1, wln lt_-:i- en..r,mc eme•uu. e- . o. T.."s . ». l. t r� . ...ml^._.�u n i ". 1 Samuel Engln:eerin� n. a En .. _ .. ti ..,...-.�.. 4 t .?I ' ., .... ... 9 t ..:.. `.0 R��E�l JD IL P• I A F-'• Pr4 11'is{N .GS e!.; Il h V. :'GP.5 -� . . s r l.ra �.Irci . �a N..14013"7":1711: 'rrw� < a VICINITY MAP 1 2 3 Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 VIC NITS' MAP 2 WELD COUNTY ROAD 20 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 1 Phone: 303.714.4840 FAX: 303.714.4800 NORTH SCALE: V" _ 1.000" Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 308.714.4800 III. Purpose of the Facility — General Description The detention pond is designed to follow Weld County and UDFCD criteria for an Extended Detention Basin design. A buried rip -rap spillway on the northeast side of the pond is sized to pass the Q100 that potentially flows into the pond. From chapter 23 of the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria and UDFCD requirements these criteria dictate that EDB ponds drain within 40 hours, this pond will drain through a water quality orifice, a 10 -year orifice and a 100-yr outlet pipe. The pond was designed with a length to width ratio of 4.5:1 and 4:1 side slopes. The depth from bottom of pond to the overflow is 4927.0 to 4923.2 or 3.8 feet.. There is a 5' wide access path around the top of the pond. IV. Ownership The Detention Pond is owned by and maintenance is the responsibility of: Cureton Front Range, LLC Dale House, VP of Operations 518 17th St. Suite. 650, Denver, CO 80202 Office #: 720-390-4555 V. Project History The detention pond is designed and sized for 24.98 disturbed acres for construction of a natural gas processing plant. The subject property is an agricultural parcel, which has been used for farming and storage. The site will require grading and drainage improvements prior to construction of the gas plant. The constructed site will be surfaced with gravel, road base or native soils and vegetation closely matching existing vegetation. VI. Project Data Sheet The design provides the required detention volume for the developed condition. An emergency spillway path is proposed on the northeast side of the pond, which can pass the Q100 into the pond. Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 30 3.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 308.714.4800 • Forebay • Trickle Channel • Micropool • Modified CDOT Type D Outlet Structure (Modified for pipes and orifice plates) • Buried Rip Rap Emergency Overflow • Catchment area: 24.98 Acres • Impervious area: 24.98 -acres at 35.77% • Hydrologic soil group C • Storage volume: 1.98 acre-feet (design volume) 3.38 (Actual) • 10 -year orifice: 18 square inches for 0.30 cfs/acre release rate • 100-yr orifice will be with a 24" RCP pipe © 1.00 % slope for 1.00 cfs/acre maximum discharge. VII. Normal Operation Inspections: Periodic Inspections with the attached checklist should be performed after major rainfall events to check for obstructions/damage and to remove trash and debris Vegetation Management: Mowing on a regular basis to prevent erosion or aesthetic problems. Fertilizer and pesticide use should be limited in and around the pond to minimize entry into downstream waters. Trash Debris and Litter Removal: Remove trash or debris causing obstructions at the inlet, outlet, orifice or trash rack especially after runoff producing rainfall events. Mechanical Equipment Check: Inspect fences and fence gates for any damage. Structural Component Check: Inspect outlet works, inlet orifice, trash rack and trickle channel for damage. VIII. Regularly Scheduled Maintenance/Monitored Maintenance Reference "Detention Pond Minor Checklist" IX. Unscheduled Maintenance Maintenance operations should be performed a minimum of once per year or when the detention pond fails to function as intended. Bank Erosion or Stabilization: All areas not vegetated should be stabilized and revegetated immediately Sediment Removal: Every six months or so, the accumulated sediment should be removed from the bottom of the outlet structure (or micropool). Note: this should be Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 FAX: 308.714.4800 checked and maintenance preformed more frequently during construction. Sediment buildup should be checked throughout the bottom of the pond and removed if sediment buildup exceeds 25% of the original design depth. Structural Repair/Replacement: If the outlet structure, forebay or trickle channel has been damaged these will require repair or replacement. X. References The following criteria was used to guide the design of the pond: • Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria, Chapter 23, Weld County Department of Public Works Weld County Colorado, 2015. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Volume 1 updated March 2017, Volume 2 updated September 2017 and Volume 3 updated November 2015. • Urban Drainage Flood Control District Spreadsheets UD-Detention_v3.07 and v2.35 • NRCS Soils Map Data (Accessed Online), August 2017 • FERIA Online Map Viewer (Accessed Online), Sept. 2017 A. Routine Maintenance Inspections: Periodic Inspections with the attached checklist should be performed after major rainfall events to check for obstructions/damage and to remove trash and debris Vegetation Management: Mowing on a regular basis to prevent erosion or aesthetic problems. Fertilizer and pesticide use should be limited in and around the pond to minimize entry into downstream waters. Trash Debris and Litter Removal: Remove trash or debris causing obstructions at the inlet, outlet, orifice or trash rack especially after runoff producing rainfall. events. Mechanical Equipment Check: Inspect fences and fence gates for any damage. Structural Component Check: Inspect outlet works, inlet orifice, trash rack and trickle channel for damage. B. Non -Routine Maintenance Samuel Engineering We Provide Solutions 8450 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 200 Phone: 303.714.4840 Greenwood Village, Co 80111 FAX: 308.714.4800 Bank Erosion or Stabilization: All areas not vegetated should be stabilized and revegetated immediately Sediment Removal: Every six months or so, the accumulated sediment should be removed from the bottom of the outlet structure (or micropool). Note: this should be checked and maintenance preformed more frequently during construction. Sediment buildup should be checked throughout the bottom of the pond and removed if sediment buildup exceeds 25% of the original design depth. Structural Repair/Replacement: If the outlet structure, forebay or trickle channel has been damaged these will require repair or replacement. XI. Inspection Report Forms Detention Pond Date Inspected Drainage System Feature Potential Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Performed Expected or Not When Needed Maintenance Is n General Trash Debris and Any cubic about would garbage no If will maintenance. less visual trash be feet equal take than removed can). and per evidence to to threshold In debris 1,000 fill the one general, as amount of part square which standard dumping. all trash of there exceed feet of next trash size should and scheduled (this debris five is it be Trash and debris cleared from site. ❑ ❑ Poisonous Vegetation Noxious and weeds Any which maintenance poisonous may constitute or personnel nuisance a vegetation hazard or the to public. No danger maintenance might of normally poisonous personnel be. vegetation or the public where (Apply Any by policies State evidence requirements or for of local the noxious regulations. use of of adopted herbicides). weeds as IPM defined Complete may State required. not or eradication be possible. local eradication of noxious Compliance policies weeds with ❑ Contaminants and Pollution Any contaminants, (Coordinate water evidence quality of or removal/cleanup response oil, other gasoline, pollutants. agency). with local No contaminants or pollutants present ❑ Rodent Holes Any evidence acting of water rodent as holes. a piping of dam through rodent or berm, holes darn or any if facility or evidence berm is via Rodents repaired. destroyed and dam or berm ❑ �Allicropaol Forebay and Sediment micropool buildup in forbay or Facility is returned to design function. ❑ ❑ Insects When wasps maintenance insects and such hornets activities. as mosquitoes, interfere with Insects Apply adopted and destroyed I insecticides operations Weld County policies. or removed in compliance Maintenance p from with site. ❑ ❑ Tree and Trees Hazard growth Tree access activity vactoring, trees maintenance, growth or interferes (i.e., or are not does slope equipment interfering do not allow with mowing, not remove. maintenance movements). with maintenance silt removal, access If or Trees activities. recycled beneficial do into not Harvested uses hinder mulch maintenance trees or other should be If identified (Use health dead, a diseased, certified of tree Arborist or removal or dying to trees determine requirements) are Remove hazard trees. ❑ Drainage Sy Feature stem PotentialC Defect When Maintenance Is Needed Results Results Performed Expected or Not When Needed Maintenance Is Side Slopes Pond of Erosion Eroded where where erosion. cause there damage of damage - is potential over two � inches is still for continued present � deep or Slopes appropriate e.g., compaction. should rock � reinforcement, erosion be stabilized control planting using measure(s); - of grass, ❑ An erosion berm embankment, observed on a compacted If erosion berms consulted a licensed is occurring to resolve civil on compacted engineer source of should erosion. be ❑ Storage Area Sediment Accumulated of otherwise outletting the designed specified condition sediment pond or of depth that affects the facility. exceeds unless inletting 10% or Sediment shape necessary and cleaned to depth; control out pond to designed reseeded erosion. if pond ❑ I Pond Berms (Dikes) Settlements inches If Any settlement to Settling severe works. consulted settlement. determine part lower problems A can of licensed to berm, than is be determine which the apparent, amount an indication with civil design of the engineer the has settlement. measure berm source settled elevation. of more should or four berm outlet of the be Dike is built back to the design elevation. ❑ Piping (Recommend Discernable berm. erosion called and recommend Ongoing to in to continue. inspect water erosion a flow Geotechnical repair and through with evaluate of condition. potential engineer pond condition for be Piping resolved. eliminated. Erosion potential ❑ Emergency Overflow/ Spillway and Over Feet Height. Berms in Four Tree Growth Tree creates failure overtopping. Tree height berm berm. growth growth of may which blockage the lead on on could berm emergency berms to problems due piping lead to over through to failure spillways and uncontrolled four may feet the of the cause in Trees small system roots restored. be restoration. consulted should (base should may A less licensed be be left be for removed. than removed in proper four civil place. inches) and engineer berm if root Otherwise the spillway system the berm should root the is ❑ Pi in p g (Recommend Discernable berm. erosion called and recommend Ongoing to in to water erosion continue. a inspect flow Geotechnical repair and through with evaluate of condition). potential engineer pond condition for be Piping resolved. eliminated. Erosion potential ❑ Drainage System Feature Potential Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Performed Expected or Not When Needed Maintenance Is kwA Emergency Overflow/ Spillway Rock hissing Only soil any out (Rip replaced) in exposure flow -rap one area on layer path five inside of of of square native spillway. rock slopes exists feet soil need above or at larger, the top not native or be of Rocks design and pad depth standards are restored to Erosion Eroded where where erosion, cause there damage of is damage potential over two inches is still for continued deep present or Slopes appropriate e.g., compaction. should rock reinforcement, erosion be stabilized control planting using g measure(s); of grass, Any erosion berm embankment. observed on a compacted If erosion berms consulted a licensed is to occurring resolve civil on compacted engineer source of should erosion. be ❑ Maintaining Detention Ponds Maintenance Inspection Checklist • Pond: Date: Inspected by: Type of Inspection: U Routine U Storm Event (# days since event) General Observations: Is water flowing? ❑Yes ❑ No Standing water? ❑ Yes No Depth: Comments: Any evidence of obstructions or erosion in vicinity of the pond that could affect performance? UYes I INo Pond Conditions: Does the pond sides/slopes/bottom show signs of settling, cracking, sloughing or other problems? ❑ Yes ❑ No Do the embankments, emergency spillway (if applicable), or side slopes show any erosion or instability? ❑Yes No Is there any evidence of animal burrowing or other activity that could contribute to instability or increased erosion? ❑Yes No Is there evidence of encroachment into the pond or improper use of the pond? ❑Yes No Do vegetated areas need mowing? UYes No Are there areas that need to be re -vegetated? UYes No ❑ Mowed today Will schedule mowing Will schedule re -vegetation activities Do vegetated areas need thinning, i.e. cattails, willows, trees? UYes No UThinned today Will schedule thinning Is there accumulation of trash, debris and/or litter to be removed? ❑Yes No ❑ Removed today ❑ Will schedule removal Any signs of vandalism or other activity that could affect performance of the pond? ❑Yes No If permanent pool, any visible pollution? ❑Yes No Erosion at high water mark? ❑Yes No Abnormally high water level? UYes I INo Unusual Algae blooms? UYes No (May indicate obstruction at orifice, or trash rack; verify outlet structure operating properly) (May signal too many nutrients in runoff; identify dog activity and clippings management; will need monitoring) Structural Components: Are the pipes/inlets going into or out of the pond clogged or obstructed? ❑Yes No Is the outfall channel from the pond functioning appropriately? ❑Yes No Is the inflow trickle channel working properly? ❑Yes No Is the orifice and/or trash rack obstructed? r IYes r INo Is the outfall channel, trickle channel or other conveyance in need of repair? UYes No Are the manholes, frames, and covers associated with the outfall channel in appropriate condition? UYes No Do any safety features, such as fences, gates or locks need repair or replacement? ❑Yes No Plan of Action: If answered YES to any of the above, the following is an anticipated Maintenance Needs Action List: Total number of concerns: Need more monitoring ( Anticipated schedule to re -visit; identify what will trigger action) (Yes answers) Need routine repair (Approximate schedule for repairs; date of follow-up to re -inspect) Need immediate repair (Take action if correct equipment on site; or contact supervisor) Signature Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Tisa, Chris Gathman Friday, February 23, 2018 11:38 AM Tisa Juanicorena FW: USR17-0065 Updates 17WE1090.CP1.pdf I was going though my e -mails. This is another e-mail received after the PC hearing for this case. So far this is what we have of record after PC. I expect we may receive additional items from the applicant prior to the hearing — I will forward as I receive these items. Thanks and Happy Friday! Chris Guthman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue tel: 970-400-3537 fax: 970-400-4098 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Nick Holland [mailto:nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 12:41 PM To: Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com> Subject: USR17-0065 Updates Chris, I wanted to provide you with a couple updates. We have entered into an agreement to purchase the Hayward property (property and house due north of the facility). The transaction will close upon USR a. •royal. Will this be reflected in your staff comments that we no longer have a resident to the north? Also I have attached our approved CDPHE air permit we received. All other Conditions of Approval are being finalized for submittal next week. Thanks i. STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION TELEPHONE: (303) 692-3150 PERMIT NO: DATE ISSUED: ISSUED TO: CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 17WE1090 February 5. 2018 Cureton Front Range LLC Issuance 1 THE SOURCE TO WHICH THIS PERMIT APPLIES IS DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS: Oil and gas facility. known as the Front Range Gas Plant. located in the SENE, Section 19,T2N, R64W. in Weld County. Colorado. THE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT OR ACTIVITY SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: Equipment ID AIRS Point Description Fugitive 002 Equipment leaks from a natural gas plant HTR2 003 One natural gas fired boiler make, model. serial number to be determined. Design rated at 20 MM Btu per hour. HTR3 004 One natural gas fired boiler make, model. serial number to be determined. Design rated at 11 MM Btu per hour. Pigging 005 Two pigging receivers One 8 inch and one 6 inch THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION AND THE COLORADO AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT C.R.S. (25-7-101 et seq), TO THOSE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS: REQUIREMENTS TO SELF -CERTIFY FOR FINAL AUTHORIZATION 1. YOU MUST notify the Air Pollution Control Division (the Division) no later than fifteen days of the latter of commencement of operation or issuance of this permit, by submitting a Notice of Startup form to the Division. The Notice of Startup form may be downloaded online at https://www.coiorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/other-air-permitting-notices. Failure to notify the Division of startup of the permitted source is a violation of Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 3. Part B, Section III G 1 and can result in the revocation of the permit. 2. Within one hundred and eighty days (180) of the latter of commencement of operation or issuance of this permit, compliance with the conditions contained in this permit shall be demonstrated to the Division. It is the owner or operator's responsibility to self -certify compliance with the conditions. Failure to demonstrate compliance within 180 days may result in revocation of the permit. (Reference Regulation No. 3. Part B. Ill G 2). AIRS ID 123 9F67 Page 1 of 7 3. This permit shall expire if the owner or operator of the source for which this permit was issued: (i) does not commence construction/modification or operation of this source within 18 months after either, the date of issuance of this construction permit or the date on which such construction or activity was scheduled to commence as set forth in the permit application associated with this permit (ii) discontinues construction for a period of eighteen months or more; (iii) does not complete construction within a reasonable time of the estimated completion data The Division may grant extensions of the deadline per Regulation No. 3, Part B. III.F.4.b. (Reference: Regulation No. 3, Part B, III.F.4.) 4. The operator shall complete all initial compliance testing and sampling as required in this permit and submit the results to the Division as part of the self -certification process. (Reference: Regulation No. 3. Part B. Section III.E.) 5. The operator shall retain the permit final authorization letter issued by the Division. after completion of self -certification, with the most current construction permit. This construction permit alone does not provide final authority for the operation of this source. 6. Point 003, 004: The manufacturer, model number and serial number of the subject equipment must be provided to the Division within one hundred and eighty days (180) after commencement of operation or issuance of this permit, whichever is later. (Reference: Regulation Number 3, Part B, III.G.2. ) EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND RECORDS 7 Emissions of air pollutants shall not exceed the following limitations (as calculated in the Division's preliminary analysis). (Reference_ Regulation No. 3. Part B. Section II.A.4) Annual Limits: Equipment ID AIRS Point Tons per Year Emission Type VOC NOx CO Fugitive 002 7.0 -- -- Fugitive HTR2 003 -- 4.4 7.3 Point HTR3 004 -- 2.4 4.1 Point Pigging 005 4.1 -- -- Point See "Notes to Permit Holder" for information on emission factors and methods used to calculate limits. Annual records of the actual emission rates shall be maintained by the owner or operator and made available to the Division for inspection upon request. 8. Point 002: The operator shall calculate actual emissions from this emissions point based on representative component counts for the facility with the most recent gas and liquids analyses. as required in the Compliance Testing and Sampling section of this permit. The operator shall maintain records of the results of component counts and sampling events used to calculate actual emissions and the dates that these counts and events were completed. These records shall be provided to the Division upon request. PROCESS LIMITATIONS AND RECORDS 9. These sources must be limited to the following maximum consumption, processing and/or operational rates as listed below. Annual records of the actual process rate must be maintained by the applicant and made available to the Division for inspection upon request. (Reference: Regulation Number 3. Part B, II A.4) AIRS ID: 123 9F67 Page 2 of 7 Process/Consumption Limits Equipment ID AIRS Point Process Parameter Annual Limit HTR2 003 Consumption of natural gas i 174.2 MM scf HTR3 004 Consumption of natural gas 95.8 MM scf Pigging 005 Depressurization events 1095 events per pig receiver The owner or operator shall monitor annual process parameters based on the calendar year. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 10. Point 002, 003, 004, 005: Visible emissions shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) opacity during normal operation of the source. During periods of startup, process modification, or adjustment of control equipment visible emissions shall not exceed 30% opacity for more than six minutes in any sixty consecutive minutes. Emission control devices subject to Regulation 7, Sections XII.C.1.d or XVII.B.2.b shall have no visible emissions. (Reference: Regulation No. 1, Section II.A.1. & 4.) 11. Point 002, 003, 004, 005: This source is subject to the odor requirements of Regulation No. 2. (State only enforceable) 12. Point 003, 004: This source is subject to the New Source Performance Standards requirements of Regulation Number 6, Part A, Subpart Dc, Standards of Performance for Small Industrial - Commercial -Institutional Steam Generating Units. 13. Point 003, 004: This source is located in an ozone non -attainment or attainment -maintenance area and subject to the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements of Regulation Number 3, Part B, III.D.2. The use of a low NOx burner is considered to be RACT for this source. 14. Point 002: This source is subject to Regulation No. 7. Section XII G. Gas -processing plants located in the 8 -hour Ozone Control Area (State Only: or any specific Ozone nonattainment or Attainment/Maintenance Area) shall comply with requirements of this Section XII.G.. as well as the requirements of Sections XII.B., XII.C.1.a.. XII.C.1.b., XII.H., and XVI. OPERATING & MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 15. Point 002. 003, 004. 005: This source is not required to follow a Division -approved operating and maintenance plan. COMPLIANCE TESTING AND SAMPLING Initial Testing Requirements 16. Point 002: Within one hundred and eighty days (180) of the latter of commencement of operation or issuance of this permit, the owner or operator shall complete the initial extended gas analysis of gas samples that are representative of volatile organic compound (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that may be released as fugitive emissions. This extended gas analysis shall be used in the compliance demonstration as required in the Emission Limits and Records section of this permit. The operator shall submit the results of the gas analysis and emission calculations to the Division as part of the self -certification process to ensure compliance with emissions limits. 17. Point 002: Within one hundred and eighty days (180) of the latter of commencement of operation or issuance of this permit, the operator shall complete a hard count of components at the source and establish the number of components that are operated in "heavy liquid service", light liquid service". "water/oil service" and "gas service". The operator shall submit the results to the Division as part of the self -certification process to ensure compliance with emissions limits. AIRS ID: 123 9F67 Page 3 of 7 Periodic Testing Requirements 18. Point 002: On an annual basis. the owner or operator shall complete an extended gas analysis of gas samples that are representative of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that may be released as fugitive emissions. This extended gas analyses shall be used in the compliance demonstration as required in the Emission Limits and Records section of this permit. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 19. A revised Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) shall be filed: (Reference: Regulation No. 3. Pad A. II.C) a. Annually by April 30'h whenever a significant increase in emissions occurs as follows: For any criteria pollutant: For sources emitting less than 100 tons per year, a change in actual emissions of five (5) tons per year or more, above the level reported on the last APEN; or For volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides sources (NOx) in ozone nonattainment areas emitting less than 100 tons of VOC or NOx per year, a change in annual actual emissions of one (1) ton per year or more or five percent, whichever is greater, above the level reported on the last APEN: or For sources emitting 100 tons per year or more, a change in actual emissions of five percent or 50 tons per year or more. whichever is less. above the level reported on the last APEN submitted; or For any non -criteria reportable pollutant: If the emissions increase by 50% or five (5) tons per year. whichever is less. above the level reported on the last APEN submitted to the Division. b. Whenever there is a change in the owner or operator of any facility, process. or activity; or c. Whenever new control equipment is installed, or whenever a different type of control equipment replaces an existing type of control equipment: or d. Whenever a permit limitation must be modified: or e. No later than 30 days before the existing APEN expires. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 20. This permit and any attachments must be retained and made available for inspection upon request. The permit may be reissued to a new owner by the APCD as provided in AQCC Regulation No. 3. Part B, Section II.B upon a request for transfer of ownership and the submittal of a revised APEN and the required fee. 21. If this permit specifically states that final authorization has been granted, then the remainder of this condition is not applicable. Otherwise. the issuance of this construction permit does not provide "final" authority for this activity or operation of this source. Final authorization of the permit must be secured from the APCD in writing in accordance with the provisions of 25-7- 114.5(12)(a) C.R.S. and AQCC Regulation No. 3, Part B, Section III.G. Final authorization cannot be granted until the operation or activity commences and has been verified by the APCD as conforming in all respects with the conditions of the permit. Once self -certification of all points has been reviewed and approved by the Division, it will provide written documentation of such final authorization_ Details for obtaining final authorization to operate are located in the Requirements to Self -Certify for Final Authorization section of this permit. 22. This permit is issued in reliance upon the accuracy and completeness of information supplied by the owner or operator and is conditioned upon conduct of the activity. or construction. installation and operation of the source. in accordance with this information and with representations made AIRS ID: 123 9F67 Page 4 of 7 by the owner or operator or owner or operator's agents. It is valid only for the equipment and operations or activity specifically identified on the permit. 23. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the general and specific conditions contained in this permit have been determined by the APCD to be necessary to assure compliance with the provisions of Section 25-7-114.5(7)(a), C.R.S. 24. Each and every condition of this permit is a material part hereof and is not severable. Any challenge to or appeal of a condition hereof shall constitute a rejection of the entire permit and upon such occurrence. this permit shall be deemed denied ab initio. This permit may be revoked at any time prior to self -certification and final authorization by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) on grounds set forth in the Colorado Air Quality Control Act and regulations of the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), including failure to meet any express term or condition of the permit. If the Division denies a permit. conditions imposed upon a permit are contested by the owner or operator. or the Division revokes a permit, the owner or operator of a source may request a hearing before the AQCC for review of the Division's action. 25. Section 25-7-114.7(2)(a), C.R.S. requires that all sources required to file an Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) must pay an annual fee to cover the costs of inspections and administration. If a source or activity is to be discontinued, the owner must notify the Division in writing requesting a cancellation of the permit. Upon notification, annual fee billing will terminate. 26. Violation of the terms of a permit or of the provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act or the regulations of the AQCC may result in administrative, civil or criminal enforcement actions under Sections 25-7-115 (enforcement). -121 (injunctions), -122 (civil penalties), -122.1 (criminal penalties), C S_ By: Kirk Bear Permit Engineer Permit Histo Issuance Date Description Issuance 1 This Issuance Issued to Cureton Front Range LLC AIRS ID: 123 9F67 Page 5 of 7 Notes to Permit Holder at the time of this permit issuance: 1) The permit holder is required to pay fees for the processing time for this permit. An invoice for these fees will be issued after the permit is issued. The permit holder shall pay the invoice within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. Failure to pay the invoice will result in revocation of this permit (Reference: Regulation No. 3, Part A. Section VI.B.) 2) The emission limits contained in this permit are based on the consumption rates requested in the permit application. These limits may be revised upon request of the owner or operator providing there is no exceedance of any specific emission control regulation or any ambient air quality standard. A revised air pollution emission notice (APEN) and complete application form must be submitted with a request for a permit revision. 3) This source is subject to the Common Provisions Regulation Part II. Subpart E, Affirmative Defense Provision for Excess Emissions During Malfunctions. The owner or operator shall notify the Division of any malfunction condition which causes a violation of any emission limit or limits stated in this permit as soon as possible, but no later than noon of the next working day. followed by written notice to the Division addressing all of the criteria set forth in Part II.E 1. of the Common Provisions Regulation. See: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aocc-reqs 4) The following emissions of non -criteria reportable air pollutants are estimated based upon the process limits as indicated in this permit. This information is listed to inform the operator of the Division's analysis of the specific compounds emitted if the source(s) operate at the permitted limitations. AIRS Point Pollutant CAS # Uncontrolled Emissions (Ib/yr) Controlled Emissions (Ib/yr) 002 Benzene 71432 424 64 Toluene 108883 411 60 Ethylbenzene 100414 366 46 Xylenes 1330207 377 49 n -Hexane 110543 645 135 003 n -Hexane 110543 314 NA Note: The emission levels for Point 002 are based on the emission factors from Table 2-4. The emission levels for Point 003 are based on emission factors from AP -42 1.4-1.2.3. TOC Emission Factors (kg/hr-component): Component Gas Service Heavy Oil Light Oil Water/Oil Service Connectors 2.0E-04 7.5E-06 2.1E-04 1.1E-04 Flanges 3.9E-04 3.9E-07 1.1E-04 2.9E-06 Open-ended Lines 2.0E-03 1.4E-04 1.4E-03 2.5E-04 Pump Seals 2.4E-03 NA 1.3E-02 2.4E-05 Valves 4.5E-03 8.4E-06 2.5E-03 9.8E-05 Other 8.8E-03 3.2E-05 7.5E-03 1.4E-02 AIRS ID: 123 9F67 Page 6 of 7 Source EPA -453/R95-017 Compliance with emissions limits in this permit will be demonstrated by using the TOC emission factors listed in the table above with representative component counts. multiplied by the VOC content from the most recent gas and liquids analyses. 5) In accordance with C.R.S. 25-7-114.1, each Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) associated with this permit is valid for a term of five years from the date it was received by the Division. A revised APEN shall be submitted no later than 30 days before the five-year term expires. Please refer to the most recent annual fee invoice to determine the APEN expiration date for each emissions point associated with this permit_ For any questions regarding a specific expiration date call the Division at (303)-692-3150. 6) This source is subject to 40 CFR, Part 60. Subpart 0000a — Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which Construction. Modification, or Reconstruction Commenced after September 18, 2015 (See June 3. 2016 Federal Register posting — effective August 2. 2016.) This rule has not yet been incorporated into Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation No. 6. A copy of the complete subpart is available at the Office of the Federal Register website at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/03/2016-11971 /oil-and-natural-qas-sector- emission-standards-for-new-reconstructed-and-modified-sources 7) This facility is classified as follows: Applicable Requirement Status Operating Permit Minor Source NANSR Minor Source 8) Full text of the Title 40. Protection of Environment Electronic Code of Federal Regulations can be found at the website listed below http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/ Part 60: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources NSPS 60.1 -End Subpart A — Subpart KKKK NSPS Part 60, Appendixes Appendix A — Appendix I Part 63: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories MACT 63.1-63.599 Subpart A — Subpart Z MACT 63.600-63.1199 Subpart AA — Subpart DDD MACT 63.1200-63.1439 Subpart EEE — Subpart PPP MACT 63.1440-63.6175 Subpart QQQ — Subpart YYYY MACT 63.6580-63.8830 Subpart ZZZZ — Subpart MMMMM MACT 63.8980 -End Subpart NNNNN — Subpart XXXXXX 9) A self certification form and guidance on how to self -certify compliance as required by this permit may be obtained online at: http://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/air-permit-self-certification AIRS ID: 123 9F67 Page 7 of 7 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Nick Holland <nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com> Friday, February 23, 2018 2:56 PM Chris Gathman; Tisa Juanicorena USR 17-0065 Conditions of Approval Submittals 180222 Front Range Gas Plant Lighting Plan.pdf; 180222 Front Range Gas Plant Noise Modeling Report.pdf Chris, I have attached the following Conditions of Approval: Noise Modeling Report Lighting Plan Please let me know if there are any questions regarding the submittals Nick Holland ( Director EHSR 0: (720) 390-4506 C: (303) 324-5967 nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com 0' EI O O. CO r11 ROAD z O O if, ri z W. 100' O O c r-1 • O m z O O N z 0 O .-1 z W. 200' W. 300' W. W. 500' O O O r4 O O. GRAVEL ROAD O O O O z O N z O o_ a z • W. /00' W. 800' W. 900' T • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w. 1000' 1. T fI 1 i V 1 6 • 7. r1 :1 ' �1 • ) 1 ' O 0 t}� 1.4r- qfc O O z I Sr. Pr frit if 1 1 � e 11 U' ' X -n _ n Ill _ —v L: to z - 4 6 .1� I. W /• j:v Y W L' %1 i.•liA 1 r IIIIII i I • V I I I i III I r.' n I I F O O (V z O O_ r-1 z GRAVEL O z zra 1 -F I 'r I I F"1 *4°-1,°"9 I' N a g m r 8 c O r. :h I f w 2 O a 0 URBAN SOLUTION CROUP Ambient and Noise Modeling Report Front Range Gas Plant Weld County, CO Prepared for: Cureton Midstream 518 17th Street Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 Prepared by: Urban Solution Group, LLC 4230 Elati Street Suite 100 Denver, CO 80216 February 23, 2018 r� URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Colorado Revised Statue §25-12-103 Summary 4 Location Information and Site Analysis 5 Ambient Monitoring Data and Results 6 Noise Modeling Method 8 Noise Modeling Receptors 9 Noise Modeling Results 10 Conclusion 11 Notations 12 Exhibit 13 Urban Solution Group, LLC * www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 2 URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Executive Summary Cureton Midstream contracted Urban Solution Group to help proactively assess predicted operational impacts at the proposed Front Range Gas Plant located in Weld County, Colorado. This report pertains to noise. It accounts for the background ambient sound levels in the area as well as a predicted environmental noise impact assessment of the proposed plant. This report includes: • Location information and site analysis • A brief review of the Colorado Revised Statue Title 25. Public Health and Environment Article 12. Noise Abatement • Results from an ambient study conducted in the area • Results from noise modeling and mitigation recommendations Image 1: Aerial of Proposed Front Range Gas Plant URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Colorado Revised Statue — § 25-12-103 The modeling analysis was conducted to assess the environmental noise impact of the proposed Front Range Gas Plant. Per the direction of The Department of Planning Services' Staff, this report utilizes the Colorado Revised Statue Title 25 — Public Health and Environment, Article 12 — Noise Abatement to ensure the facility adheres to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in Residential Zone as delineated in §25-12-103 C.R.S. Table 1 below outlines the maximum permission noise levels by zone. The Colorado Revised Statue 25-12-103: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more therefrom in excess of the db(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance: Table 1: 25-12-103: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Zone (dB(A)) Maximum 7:00p.m Noise 7:00 a.m. — (dB(A)) Maximum 7:00a.m Noise 7:00 p.m. — Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Urban Solution Group, LLC www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 4 r� URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Location Information and Site Analysis Proposed Site: Front Range Gas Plant Approximate Location: 40° 7'37.82"N, 104°35'11.22"W Image 2: Ariel View of Proposed Front Range Plant The proposed Front Range Gas Plant is located west of Weld County Road (WCR) 51 and south of WCR 20. WCR 51 is a dirt road with minimal traffic. Railroad tracks and Interstate 76 are located approximately 1.3 miles south, and an Excel Energy plant is approximately 2.5 miles south from the proposed plant. Keensburg is the closest town and is roughly 3.75 miles to the southeast. r� URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Ambient Monitoring Data and Results An ambient sound level survey was conducted on and near the proposed Front Range Gas Plant location to document the background ambient sound levels in the area prior to Cureton's proposed operations. Image 3 shows the approximate locations of the 3 monitoring locations. Image 3: Ambient Monitoring Locations Monitoring Location 3 Front Range Gas Plant Google Monitoring Location 1 Monitoring Location 2 Data Collection Information and Meter Specifications: The data collection period was from approximately 12:00 PM on Friday, November 10, 2017 to 2:00 PM Monday, November 13, 2017. A Bruel & Kjr Type 2250, 4th generation, hand-held analyzer (S/N 3003380) with transducer (S/N 2922640) measured sound levels at all three monitoring locations. The meter was calibrated using a Bruel & Kjr Type 4231 Acoustical Calibrator (S/N: 3006473). Exhibit 1 lists the manufacturer's specifications for this meter. Urban Solution Group, LLC 4 www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com r,,; URBAN / SOLUTION GROUP Common sounds that were present at the proposed Front Range Gas Plant primarily included air traffic, road traffic and trains. The sounds are characteristic of a residential area. The overages that did occur were due to air traffic, road traffic, wind, running engines, trains, a popping noise and birds. Table 2 summarizes the logarithmic averages of the study for the three- day monitoring period. Table 2: Daily and Overall Sound Level Averages (dBA and dBC) Description Average (dBA) Average (dBC) Wind Speed (mph) Friday, November 10, 2017 43.71 62.13 3.4 Saturday, November 11, 2017 45.21 68.96 5.1 Sunday, November 12, 2017 44.21 63.20 3.9 Monday, November 13, 2017 48.78 61.89 3.9 Average 45.73 65.78 4.2 Urban Solution Group, LLC ., www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 7 roURBAN SOLUTION GROUP Noise Modeling Method Sound pressure levels for the significant noise sources associated with the proposed equipment were compiled from manufacturer's data, file data and theory. Using accepted acoustical engineering techniques, the sound pressure level data was used to calculate sound power levels. Sound power levels of the significant noise sources associated with proposed equipment were calculated from a combination of manufacturer's sound pressure level data, file data of previously measured units, and theory. ENM Windows, an environmental noise assessment software package from RTA Technology Pty. Ltd., was employed to determine the environmental noise impact of the proposed plant equipment. The noise prediction program completes complex sound propagation calculations that included the effects of the environment, terrain, and topography. The algorithms of the model are based on methods and research well recognized in the acoustics community and follow the CONCAWE algorithms. The calculated source sound power levels, complete with information regarding the proposed plant equipment layout along with the receptor locations, were entered into the model. The noise propagation model was used to predict the proposed plant's sound levels at the receptor points. Table 3: Equipment Included in Model Quantity Equipment Manufacturer Model 2 Residue Gas Compressors CAT G3608LE 2 Residue Gas Compressors Exhaust GT LG-1 2 Residue Gas Compressors EAI CAT NA 2 Residue Gas Coolers Air -X 144-21 1 EC -101 Expander Compressor Skid LA Turbine LAT577EC - 1210 1 C-161 / C-162 Compressor GEA FES Inc. Grasso XC-121OGLE 1 C-110 / C-111 Stabilizer Compressor UE Comp JGN/2 2 A-361 Refridge Condenser Cooler Smithco 4 F48-140-2 2 A-301 / A-302 Cooler Smithco 1F30-119-2 1 A-161/162 Lube Oil Coolers Smithco 1F12-091-1 1 C-141 Regen Compressor Sundyne LMC-311P 1 A-341 Regen Gas Cooler Smithco F24-080-2 1 H-781 Burner Heatec HCI-10010-50G 1 H-716 HMO Heater UOP Russell THM SHO1000 1 H-741 Regen Gas Heater Heatec HCI-5010-40-G 2 A-310/311 Stabilizer Coolers Steeltek 1F08-060-1 2 P-613/614 Pump & Motor Schlumberger S175N - 80 stg Urban Solution Group, LLC www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com URBAN SOLUTION r GP0UP Noise Modeling Receptors The receptor locations were select to comply with the requirements set forth in the Colorado Revised Statue §25-12-103. The particular location of the receptor points on each property line were selected based on the most impacted point (closest point to equipment and noise sources) on the property line. Image 4 displays the receptor point locations. Image 4: Receptor Locations Urban Solution Group, LLC www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 9 r4(a URBAN SOLUTION GRGSR Noise Modeling Results: The results of the environmental noise impact assessment indicate that by implementing the noise control measures listed in Table 5, the mitigated proposed facility would comply with the allowable noise limits for Residential Zone outlined in §25-12-103 C.R.S. Table 5 provides description of the various acoustic enclosures, mufflers and permanent acoustic walls that are incorporated in the mitigated proposed facility. Table 4 shows the unmitigated and mitigated dBA levels pre and post mitigation at each receptor point outlined in the map on Image 4. Table 4: Noise Modeling Results Receptor Unmitigated dBA Mitigated dBA Receptor 1: Northern Property Line 60.8 44.4 Receptor 2: Eastern Property Line 58.7 46.8 Receptor 3: Southern Property Line 73.1 49.3 Receptor 4: Western Property Line 66.0 47.5 Table 5: Noise Control Measures Equipment Description Quantity Residue Gas Compressor Building Acoustic building enclosure 1 1 Residue Gas Compressor Building Acoustic Ventilation L -style acoustic building ventilation 1 Residue Gas Compressors Cooler Wall 30' high, 6" thick permanent acoustic wall 3 Residue Gas Compressor Mufflers Zeron 65's Zeron 65 dBA reduction mufflers 1 EC -101 Expander Compressor Lagging Acoustic enclosure with ventilation around expander/compressor 1 NE Corner Noise Wall 22' high, 6" thick permanent acoustic wall 1 NW Corner Noise Wall 22' high, 6" thick permanent acoustic wall 1 SW Corner Noise Wall 17' high, 6" thick permanent acoustic wall Urban Solution Group, LLC a www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 0 • URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Conclusion An environmental noise propagation model was compiled to assess the predicted operational impacts of Cureton's proposed Front Range Gas Plant. The model accounts for equipment listed in Table 3 as well as the noise control measures outlined in Table 5. The results from the model indicate that by implementing the noise control recommendations outlined in Table 5, the predicted operational impact at each of the receptor points will adhere to the maximum permissible noise limits for the Residential Zone set forth in Colorado Revised Statue §25-12-103. Urban Solution Group, LLC www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 11 c� URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Notations The services provided for this project were performed in accordance with generally accepted profession consulting services. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended by rendition for these consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made. Urban Solution Group, LLC subcontracts various vendors for different areas of mitigation assessment, analysis, data collection and mitigation equipment rental and/or manufacturing. Urban Solution Group, LLC contracted Principle Environmental, LLC and Noise Solutions Inc. for various parts of the data collection, modeling and analysis of this location. The content of this report contains information and analysis from several parties. This report was generated for the exclusive use by Cureton Midstream. Urban Solution Group, LLC www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 12 r� URBAN SOLUTION GROUP Exhibit 1 Manufacturer's Specifications Urban Solution Group, LLC ' www.UrbanSolutionGroup.com 13 Hand-held Analyzer — Type 2250. with Frequency Analysis Softwar Enhanced Logging Software BZ-7225 Type 2250 is the innovative. 4th generation. hand -he /d analyzer from Brriel&K} r. The design philosophy is based on extensive research which concluded that the instrument should be easy and safe to use. while at tie same time incorporating clever features Type 2250 has been awarded several prizes for it combination of ex- cellent ergonomics and attractive design. Type 2250 can host a number of software modules. inducting frequency analysis. logging (profiling) and re- cording of the measured signal Thee are available separately at any time — or you can order a fully pre- canfgured instrument from the factory The combination of software modules and innovative hardware males the instrument into a dedicated solution for performing p reci s on measure men t tasks in environmental occupational and industrial application areas. As a result, you get the functionality you need now. plus the option of opening up for more functionality tater — and your investment is securely protected PRODUCT DATA Sound Level Meter Software BZ-7222, e BZ-7223, Logging Software BZ-7224, and Sound Recording Option BZ-7226 Uses and Features USES FEATURES • Environmental noise assessment and monitoring • Large, high -resolution, touch -sensitive dour screen • Occupational noise evaluation • Data storage on plug-in memory -cards • Selection of hearing protection • Standard USB (On -the -Go) computer interface • Noise reduction • Dynamic range in excess of 120 dB • Product quality control • 3Hz — 20 kHz broadband linear frequency range • Class 1 sound measurements b the latest • Real-time frequency analysis in 1/1- or 1/3 -octave international standards bands Real-time analysis of sound in 1/1- and 1/3 -octave • Broadband and spectral data can be fogged to obtain bands a tine history for later analysis • Analysis of time hisbries for broadband parameters • Sound recording of measured signal during all or and spectra (Logging) parts of a measurement • Documentation of measurements using text and • Personal measurement, display and job setup voice annotations • PC software included for setup, archiving, export and • Documentation of measurements through recording reporting of measured sound • Automatic detection of, and correction for, windscreen • Robust and environmentally protected (1P44) Bruel & Kjaer • r Esther Gesick From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Esther, Jamie Herzmann <jamiedahn@hotmail.com> Monday, February 26, 2018 8:57 AM Esther Gesick; Jamie Herzmann; Tom Herzmann Letters regarding USR 17-0065 SKM_654e18022609570.pdf Attached are two letters regarding USR 17-0065. I would like them added to the record for the commissioners meeting this Wednesday, February 28th. Thank you, Jamie Herzmann From: scan@greeleyschools.org <scan@greeleyschools.org> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 9:58 AM To: jamiedahn@hotmail.com Subject: Message from KM_654e 1 February 25, 2018 BOCC 1150 O St. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR Case 17-0065 My wife and I live within a half mile of the proposed Cureton Gas Plant on CR 18 and 51. My concern about this project was our property value decreasing or the inability to sell our home. I inherited property on the Canada/Minnesota border several years ago and it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the property while living so far away. My wife and I have been planning to move to Minnesota to be closer, we were just waiting for her to complete her college courses and obtain her teaching license. Had we not been planning to move, I would not have had any concerns about the Cureton project. Cureton reached out to us to discuss our concerns. We agreed to meet with Charlie and Dale who presented us with an offer to buy our property. They explained that they understood our reservations about property value and that they could easily utilize our property in the business. Their offer was fair and within a few days and minor negotiations we were able to make a deal that benefitted both parties. In my opinion, Cureton has been exceptional in demonstrating concern for their community. They have hosted several meetings with the public and have tried to take our feedback into consideration. I have seen that they try to work with residents toward resolutions which is more than any other oil and gas company has done in our area. I am in support of the Cureton project. Best Regards, 700g '.'ctpuans Tom Herzmann 303-956-0258 therzmann@sbcglobal.net February 24, 2018 BOCC 1150 O St. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR Case 17-0065 My husband and I live within a half mile of the proposed Cureton Gas Plant on CR 18 and 51. Initially we were opposed to the project for three main reasons: salability of our home, safety, and road conditions. We are not opposed to the oil and gas industry. We fuel our cars and heat our home with propane. My husband works in the industry. We understand the opportunity for oil and gas in Weld County, so I am writing this letter to discuss the integrity Cureton has demonstrated regarding this project. First Cureton reached out to the residents within a one mile radius of their proposed site. Having worked in the industry for many years, I know this attempt to communicate was not required. Cureton also hosted at least three meetings where they provided the opportunity for neighbors to communicate their concerns. They made attempts to mitigate potential noise, light, traffic, esthetic, safety, and contamination issues and tried to take our feedback into consideration. While we appreciated the opportunity to voice our opinions, my husband and I maintained our position of not wanting to live near such a plant for the reasons I listed above. We were also very concerned for our neighbors to the south who were within a tenth of a mile from the proposed site. Cureton reached out to us personally to discuss our individual concerns and find solutions. We met with them and I was braced for the worst. That meeting gave me a new respect for Cureton and a new hope for the oil and gas industry as a whole. Charlie presented us with an offer to buy our home explaining that they found an opportunity to alleviate our problems with the project AND use our home responsibly for their project. They explained that they were able to utilize our neighbor's property as well which really softened my angst toward them. We were grateful that they heard and understood what the project meant for us. We were also impressed that they found a creative way to solve the problems for two neighbors who would have been greatly impacted by this project. Not with a bribe, but with a win -win solution. We were able to obtain an appraisal and with only a few emails back and forth to negotiate the contract we came to an amicable deal. Clearly this is not a solution for every neighbor and Cureton is not in the business of buying property they cannot use, but I do know that Cureton has made attempts to work with other neighbors in finding acceptable solutions to their individual concerns. The greatest source of contention from the surrounding residents was why this location? During our meeting Charlie and Dale explained why this particular location is so important to them and we had a better understanding of where they are coming from. We appreciated their honesty. We have lived at this location for ten years. We have NEVER been approached by an oil and gas company in an attempt to hear our concerns let alone problem solve. Other oil and gas companies have destroyed our roads, ran over our chickens, and almost run me off the road many times. We have dealt with the noise and light pollution from new wells springing up around us for years with not so much as a nod in our direction. Our friends and neighbors complain of oil and gas companies leaving their gates open, leaving trash on their property, and killing wildlife on land that does not belong to them. In my experience the industry has been intrusive, irresponsible, destructive, wasteful, and greedy. It is my hope that Cureton's example will raise the bar in the industry. We all know the oil and gas potential in Weld County. We also know that Weld County is a rich agricultural environment. It is time for companies to work with residents rather than infiltrate established communities with little thought of the destruction it causes to those who live there. I do not think it is possible to meet every residential need, however at least in our case Cureton has proven that with a little bit of creative problem solving residents and businesses can meet each other half way. Charlie, Nick, and Dale, have earned my respect and I wish Cureton the best of luck on their project. Sincerely, 94me We17 taa‘t Jamie Herzmann 9561 CR 51 Keenesburg, CO 80643 jamiedahn@hotmail.com Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Karla Ford Tuesday, February 27, 2018 7:10 AM Esther Gesick; Tisa Juanicorena mlrichardson@apc.us.com FW: Cureton Midstream USR - BCC hearing on 2/28/18 Cureton Midstream USR -Weld County 2018.pdf Mr. Richardson, By way of this message, I have forwarded your letter to Clerk to the Board and her staff as they will be the ones to enter it as an exhibit for tomorrow's hearing. Thank you. Karla Ford[J Office Manager, Board of Weld County Commissioners 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632 :: 970.336-7204 :: kford@weldgov.com:: www.weldgov.com :: My working hours are Monday -Thursday 7:00a.m.-4:00 p.m. Friday 7:00a.m. - Noon Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: M.L. Richardson [mailto:mlrichardson@apc.us.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 6:24 PM To: Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com> Cc: charlie.beecherl@curetonmidstream.com Subject: Cureton Midstream USR - BCC hearing on 2/28/18 Hello, Karla, Please forward this email and the attachment to each of the 5 Weld County Commissioners in preparation for the USR hearing on February 28, 2018 and confirm that you have done so to me. I really appreciate your assistance. Thank you! M.L. Richardson 303-619-0784 EXHIBIT I t 11 1 KFP Keller Farm Property LLC 14802 West 44th Avenue Golden, CO 80403 (303) 279-6611 February 26, 2018 Weld County Commissioners 1150 O ST. Greeley, CO 80631 Sent via email to, for forwarding to Commissioners: kfordca?weldgov.com Re: Cureton Midstream USR hearing on February 28, 2018 Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing this letter to you today in support of the Use by Special Review for the Cureton Midstream Front Range Gas Plant in the southeastern part of the County near the town of Keenesburg. This plant will process natural gas and will move the processed gas to market through existing interstate natural gas pipelines, many of which serve Colorado and Wyoming customers warming our homes, fueling our stoves and providing clean energy to our region. According to representatives of Cureton Midstream, there is a need for this additional facility in our area to meet the demands. As manager of property over which the gas lines for this plant will be located, I have attended 2 community meetings. I have selected teams to work with me to take various properties through zoning and permitting in 8 states for the mining industry, a related type of natural resources industry. I was very impressed by the Cureton Midstream team members who I met through this process. In fact the first person who I met was Charlie Beecherl, the President of Cureton Midstream when he was greeting attendees at the community meeting. I wish that every President of companies requesting rezonings in our communities would attend the community meetings. That shows a true commitment by the company to the community. Several additional team members also attended these meetings to answer questions. They were all well prepared, well versed in their areas of expertise including plant management and safety and, they listened to the comments of the community. In fact they even adjusted their plans in response to the community member's comments when possible. During negotiations regarding the pipeline easement, I found the representatives of the company to be very professional and experienced. They, too, listened to comments and resolved them as we moved through the process. Cureton has utmost respect for the people with whom they work with. After all, some of them will be working at the proposed plant. Cureton does what they say that they are going to do and have followed through with their word. In my opinion, Cureton is committed to being a good partner in Weld County and to be a good steward of the environment and community. I ask you to vote in support of Cureton's proposal and to approve construction of the Gas Plant. Thank you for the work that you do in Weld County. Sincerely, ` Richardson Director of Strategy and Sustainable Development Keller Farm Property and Keller Family Limited Partnership C: Charlie Beecherl via email: Charlie.beecherl@curetonmidstream.com MEMORANDUM TO: Sean Conway, District 3 Commissioner and County Commissioners — Mike Freeman, Julie Cozad, Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Steve Moreno RECEIVED FROM: Residents of Southeast Weld County FEB 2 8 2018 DATE: February 2018 WELD COWLIY SUBJECT: USR 17-0065 COMMISS! S We are requesting that you deny granting Cureton Front Range, LLC USR 17-0065 application at your February 28, 2018 hearing. The first words in your mission statement are "To protect and enhance the quality of life for County residents" and as residents, we are asking you to uphold that mission statement. Below are some of the reasons we are seeking that you deny this application and ask the applicant to seek out another site as recommended at the hearing on February 6, 2018, with the Motion: Forward Case USR17-0065 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. (1) As stated on the county website, Weld County has prospered as there are "thousands of acers of prime agricultural land" and Weld County is the lead in many areas of agriculture in our state. As residents, we also understand the economic impact that Oil & Gas has brought to our county, and we are not opposed to the mining and cultivation of that resource. Harvesting of these mineral rights has already taken place under this parcel of land. What we are opposed to is the proposed use of agricultural land for the commercial and industrial purposes of a processing site. As commissioners, we know you understand the responsibility of all to be good stewards of our land. Towns, cities, and the county have all set aside areas for industrial and commercial use. There are non-residential areas that are east of Keenesburg, west of the proposed site, and north of the proposed site that would not interfere with this residential agriculture area. Land is available, but Cureton has chosen not to pursue those options. (2) Safety is a major concern of residents. After Cureton failed to provide their "Safety Protection & Control Plan" as requested by residents in public meetings, residents contacted the surrounding fire districts themselves. Keenesburg responded that this area is out of their district, and should there be a major plant failure, they would not respond. Greeley, if called in, would only come within Y2 mile of the facility — and there are several homes within that %2 -mile radius. Only recently, after much advanced training, was Greeley able to decrease the restricted "within one - mile" of a plant failure. The Hudson Fire District covers this parcel, but they have yet to respond to questions from the residents of this area. We are sure that the gas company in Frederick did not expect an explosion in Frederick, but that explosion killed a husband and left a mother who is so injured, she cannot work and support her family. Several years ago, the Roggen plant explosion left two men with physical damage. The recent gas explosion in northern Weld County left one man dead. This is only a very small sample of accidents in Weld County. Yes, accidents occur, but the chance of human life being endangered decreases when there are less residents in the area. As a cryogenic facility, there will be a great deal of wastewater, which again, increases truck traffic to take it away. When residents asked about the contamination of ground water at two of the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, 0 1 i v (S:1\ t -r1/4-- a a/( Printed Name Signed Name ��-31Ce,,a gct 1 Address /4tAu cgIJ c� Y 5 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, f?39Y≤6I6i-i- El? Printed Name Sign 1431 4t4nt R4.sI GGnG5b Y 1 IAddress the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, TERsm L k 1(G f `r te Otte Printed Name Signed Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, t ;rvn l L\ N‘r-A-k Printed Name Signed Name k t eve ,1 -x'. -R C o Address €" `� 3 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Ii≥,'t/ / p Printed Name .25-O.26 4. Signed Name Address keenesbt,ry,Co Foie the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Printed Name Signed Name 3S4ic U c Address ES )30;2 ,,Pc) -4-6) (-) } .. r?'tom Sib f' % 1 L gob Ir 1' '. ,ant.., W \Z 2/01 ;n -•LI-7 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, j3r16h Saock,k Printed Name fyt_t_re,„ � y Ash 6* Ovd50,1 Signed Name Address ,chc1re ?wort/ Genvelesiocen t r00 woe Lc the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, 31,11(..H-\( kA Printed Name Signed Name Address • the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, y;'JS 1 111 4 1( \ Printed Name i _J 1 / ., • � r Signed Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, C �DL >nciir\ Printed Name fC_ LOO - — aD ned Name 71 44m, • Address OrtIVC 1/13Prink-7 (61 Gfrotidt refton a-c- the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, �ra- t-77/\/ r Printed Name 19 I� Signed Name wC'i q7 V Address 5G n L-) CQ. `l the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, • 17hci4 5wiet-ke Printed Name cNiuz.t± aEs-c);t7 w R /8 /ke 2ie- xi, £Q Sidned Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, FAA S4i tka,. Printed Name Signe¢'Name Ew 250a1 Address 2 Keeoesbtk9 (0 7j -j3 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, cki 40 4 Printed Name Co. c90 Eff &Acv vc,Z Signed Name Address (>1 c. TAI ) L -N the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, vSS 71q C LA' Printed Name Signed Name Address i' n ci< 11),(1c< (L18 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, _ sc144okSaI3co\tion Rtord- Printed Name Signed Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, e6e11WQ,Ate ..C471-te Printed Name ,zateaf4O- emwepA gzistam a ray Signed Name Address 0,_,Q stye Lloyd Land Farms Lloyd Land, Owner and Manager Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2W8 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS To Whom It May Concern, I, Lloyd Land, have an airport and extensive farming operation in Weld County, just South of WCR 16 on WCR 51. My dealings with various personnel from Cureton Midstream have been, and continue to be, extremely courteous and professional. After reviewing the proposed Cureton project, it is found to be very compatible with our surroundings as well as the other oil and gas operations in the area which, in my opinion, are all first class. The economic and beneficial impacts of this Cureton project will be: The creation of various full-time jobs in our area will surely benefit and strengthen our local economy both directly and indirectly as past projects have clearly done in Weld County. This will, in other words, aid Weld County's continuing effort to create jobs and bolster infrastructure for progress and prosperity now and into the future. Weld County is the leader in oil and gas production in the State. The oil and gas operators continue to need additional processing capacity and pipeline facilities to handle current and future production to maintain this leadership position. This need has and will continue to always have safety, waste management and the environment first -in -mind by the various operators. In my knowledge of the engineering standards and dedication exhibited by Cureton, they will be operating the proposed facility and pipeline infrastructure with these same considerations always at the forefront. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 898- 8496. Thank you and sincerely, Lloyd Land Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Chris Gathman Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:09 AM Tisa Juanicorena Esther Gesick; Bob Choate; Nick Holland FW: Letters for the February 28 meeting Ben.pdf; Wesley.pdf Here are two more letters for USR17-0065. Regards, Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue tel: 970-400-3537 fax: 970-400-4098 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Ellen Swieter [mailto:ellen.swieter@aims.edul Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:07 AM To: Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com> Subject: Letters for the February 28 meeting Chris - Our two boys wanted to speak today at the hearing for U5R 17-0065 but they are still in high school and can't miss school. Please make sure the board is aware of their letters. Thank you. Ellen Ellen K. Swieter, Chair Business and CIS Programs ellen.swieter@aims.edu EXHIBIT 1 Dear Weld County Commissioners, I have lived at my house all of my life with a high quality life. Agriculture is all around. Nothing but fields and trees. Living out here allowed me to experience what agriculture was like. I have ridded in tractors of all kinds doing all kinds of tasks. I have ridden in one of John Deere's biggest combines from living out here. However, that was all when the road was dirt. I could run around and play with no worry of anything. But, as soon as the road was paved, it started becoming less than what it used to be. We started having giant oil well rigs, semi tractors, all going 80 miles an hour down the road, and I am not exaggerating. You could no longer have the country feeling of just riding your bike around. You had to make sure you weren't going to get killed by a truck all the time. And if this plant goes in, that will all get worse. More truck traffic and a big plant takes away an agriculture field and the beauty of the landscape. More noise, no just quiet. All artificial lights instead of the bright moon at night. No longer able to see the stars. Everything I have worked for and experience in my life at my home will be taken away if this plant goes in and my quality of life will drop an unreasonable amount. Sincerely, Benjamin Swieter, Age 14 My life has been spent out in the country. Whether that be in the mountains, on the farm, or at home. Home is where the heart is, and my heart is not in a place overrun with traffic and people, or a sky scared by the towers of a separation plant. I grew up to the sound of swaying trees and tractors cutting grain, not the drone of a large engine churning in the night. I grew up on farmland and I grew up in a time when the sound of a gun was intriguing and exciting, not fearful and dangerous. If this plant is put in, the farmland will be compromised, the mountains blocked, and my gun rights further restricted because of the location of this plant. I shoot competition .22 rifle for 4-h and I don't want this privilege to be taken from me. When I was younger CR 18 was dirt. We could play near the road, and cross it with out fearing that a careless truck may come speeding over the hill and catch me in its grill. As soon as that road was paved my quality of life dramatically decreased. My sleep was disturbed, traffic became constant, and my safety was jeopardized. I remember counting 1 or 2 cars a day, and now it has increased to 1 or 2 cars every 10 minutes. The new plant will lie along CR 20 and that road is in poor condition. Paving that road is possible but a poor solution to this problem. Paving the road would further decrease my quality of life, and increase the dangers on the CR 18 and CR 22 intersection. If that plant was not built at all my quality of life would remain unchanged, my rights uninfringed, and my safety would still be secure. I request with all sincerity and due respect that this USR would not pass. Wesley Swieter, Age 15 CURETON MIDSTREAM 518 17th Street Ste 650 Denver, CO 80202 (720) 390-4555 info@curetonmidstream.com USR 17- 0065: Front Range Gas Facility Board of County Commissioners Hearing February 28, 2018 DUREThN MIDSTREAM 518 17th Street Ste 650 Denver, CO 80202 (720) 390-4555 info@curetonmidstream.com USR 17- 0065: Front Range Gas Facility Board of County Commissioners Hearing February 28, 2018 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM opening Remarks • Cureton is seeking approval for USR 17-0065 - Front Range Gas Facility • Planning Commission hearing on February 6 - Cureton's first time going through USR, with valuable lessons learned - Thoroughly evaluated the facility's compatible USR with the existing surrounding land USES - Incorporated feedback from the hearing and implemented significant changes to demonstrate COMPATIBLE USE • The Recommendation from the Planning Commission states that "it is the opinion of the planning commission that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code" and cites A.3 and "the uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses." • USE is defined as "Any purpose for which a STRUCTURE or a tract of land may be designed, arranged, intended, maintained or occupied; also any activity, occupation, business or operation which is carried on in or on a STRUCTURE or on a tract of land." (Sec. 23-1-90) • The Code specifically allows for certain USES to become compatible with surrounding USES For example, a mitigation measure buffering or screening of the proposed USE from adjacent properties may be required in order to make the determination that the proposed USE is compatible with the surrounding uses. (Sec. 23-2-240(A)(10)) Cureton planned site specific measures can be used to aid in the compatibility aspect of locating the facility on the subject property. • Presentation structure: Company and project overview Facility and operations Community outreach and mitigation plans Compliance with USR code 2 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Cureton Introduction • Who? The Cureton management team consists of over 90 years of combined experience in the oil & gas industry. Previous employers include: Honeywell UOP CALIBER MIDSTREAM rir‘cSS MIDSTREAM I@ Bill Barrett Corporation WIiiamsi 3' AkA • Where? — Weld County Headquarters in Keenesburg, Colorado at 31631 County Road 398 • What? WILDCAT MO�fil�ALM energy group, III A natural gas gathering and processing infrastructure system, "Midstream System", located along the 1-76 corridor in Weld County EXCELLENCE INTEGRITY TRUST 3 Cureton Past Project Experience a Weld County, Colorado: Gas Gathering and Processing 20 mmcf d facilities Garfield County, Colorado: Gas Gathering and Processing 150 mmcf/d facility Crockett County, Texas Oil Gathering 40 Mbbl storage and transport DuRET:N MIDSTREAM McKenzie County, North Dakota: Gas Gathering and Processing 10 and 75 mmcf/d facilities Desoto Parish, Louisiana: Gas Gathering and Processing 2 x 60 m m cf/d facilities 4 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Natural Gas Lifecycle: Wellhead to Market Downstream • Drilling • Completion • Production J • Gathering • Processing • Storage 1 J Storage 3 -Phase Aiiii•1 Separation � T • _ PROCESSING FACILITY • Fractionation • Manufacturing • Distribution J i Compressor Station Ethane Propane Butane I CURETON ROLE MARKET Distribution/ Ado Meter Station [I 1-ril - 5 DUREThN MIDSTREAM Midstream Purpose in Weld County Cureton Proposed Processing Facility CIG/ Xcel Energy Inter/ Intrastate Pipelines Local Distribution Company Power Plant House Gas Meter 00 00 Cureton's facility is a key piece of the puzzle for providing cost-efficient Energy to Weld County and Colorado. Power Lines Electric Meter Electricity Lights Refrigerator TV Air Conditioner 6 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Why is this Project Needed? Project Needs ■ • Oil and Gas producers in Weld County actively applying latest drilling technologies constantly improving well productivities New pipelines needed to gather and transport gas • Total Production outpacing Processing Capacity New Processing capacity is necessary to effectively handle volumes both today and in the future More wells flaring due to both processing and gas gathering pipeline constraints • Safety and Waste Legacy gathering systems were not designed to handle new volume and pressure for Horizontal Weld County Production leading to over -pressured pipelines Cureton is installing 100% X -Rayed steel pipeline gathering system Flaring gas at the wellsite is wasteful when the commodity can be captured and sold for both electricity and natural gas demand Project Solutions 10.000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Annual Flared Mcf/ Year in Weld County 5,903,535 7,693,850 7,693,093 8,949,221 2014 2015 2016 2017 M$.9 Billion cubic feet "Bcf" of gas was flared in Weld County in 2017 - worth as much as $54 million and enough to heat 45,000 homes for a year. Cureton facility capable of processing 21.9 Bcf per year. COGCC: "More producers seeking flare allowances due processing and pipeline constraints" Source: Chart data supplied from C GCC website 2-15-2017 7 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Project Overview - Facility Overview - Site Selection - Compatibility DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Project overview Project Overview • Cryogenic Gas Processing Facility 60,000 mcf/d Pipeline for clean residue natural Gas to Colorado Interstate Gas and XCEL Energy Pipeline for Natural Gas Liquids "NGLs" to be transported to US Gulf Coast for further processing Pipeline for Gas Gathering from Producers in Weld County Facility Operations Overview • 18 full time local jobs created in Weld County with 24/7 on site staffing of the facility 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 I 4 C-3 C I 0 I 2 M 2 Dayti T Nigh 2 me Shift W ire Shi 2 TH 2 F 2 2 2 SA 2 SU 2 9 OURETON MIDSTREAM Project Site Selection • 145 acres of land available for purchase provides topographic buffer from landowners in the area • Currently has 32 miles of pipeline under construction with ROW secured to and from site • Zoned Agricultural with rural footprint in existing and growing Oil and Gas facilities area of Weld County • 69 Kv utility powerline being built adjacent to property by United Power • Colorado Interstate Gas/ Xcel Residue within 1 .4 miles of site • NGL Line within 2.5 miles of site • Site located outside Flood Zone • Fantastic road access being 2.5 miles from Hwy 76 and County road 49 to support an project • Central to producers requiring new gathering and processing infrastructure in eastern Weld County • Facility is outside of a Weld County Planned Unit Development (PUD) While having the necessary qualifications to support the project, the site is rurally located limiting impact on Weld County residents, with only 3 residents located within I/2 mile of the nearest facility fence line. Is _ 1 Int AO OS' Litial Hudson �- 4 , Legg nd Cureto n Cureton Proposed Facility Oureten Gas Gathering Pipeline United Power • i a Substation owerl•int Pipelines truce on Proposed Residue © Piglllips 66 1.1GL aG High Rains Land Markers I Weld County SubdiwlsiOns Floadlplain 1O0yr. - - - Hrgi►�r;ys YJ IJ County' Zcnin;a AID sx � �a:a a!S Wel Wire 11 ,. 10 CUREThN MIDSTREAM Compatibility: honing • Cureton Processing Facility is located in the heart of land zoned as agriculture • The property includes 97 acre- feet of Hen rylyn water rights • Cureton has signed a 5 year farming lease with a local farmer to lease 50 acres on West side of property with available water rights (currently undeveloped prime farmland) • This lease provides a net increase of 17 acres of "active" farmland • This "Demonstrate(s) a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land" complying with 23-2-230.B.6 Site (145 acres) Proposed Facility (33 acres) Agriculture Lease (50 acres) Zoned Ag Flood Plain PUD Zoning ii USES Surrounding Proposed Facility Antenna Tower Anadarko Hudson Compressor Station Anadarko SWD Hudson Rail Terminal Correctional Facility Anadarko Pipeline Work XCEL Natural Gas Power Plant Tank Battery United Power Future Substation Workover Rig Truck Driving School Tank Battery Tank Battery NGL SWD DUREThN MIDSTREAM Noble Pipeline Work & Storage Pond Pipeyard rd kgIeEarth `f 'i cr1 Google r DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Compatibility In Weld County: Oil and Gas Existing and Permitted Wells • Facility location is central to current and future oil & gas activity in the surrounding area • Facility location is prime to service the production of gas in this emerging area of the basin • With the development of future wells, the demand for gas gathering and processing in this part of Weld county will continue to increase and Cureton is under contract to service 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Existing & Permitted Well Pads (1-20 Wells Per Pad) 29 1 Mile 127 275 2 Mile 3 Mile Cureton Proposed Facility • Existing Wells • Approved Location (Form 2A) Permit el Approved Well (form 2) Permit 0 Pending Location (Form 2A) permit Pending Well (Form 2) Permit Site compatible with surrounding land USES and compliant with Code 23-2-230(6)(3) 14 Data provided by C0GCC as of 2/22/18 Rings represent 1, 2 and 3 mile radii from facility location 300 250 200 150 100 50 29 0 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Compatibility In Weld County: Oil and Gas Facilities • Significant number of existing oil & gas facilities surround the facility location • 3 water disposal facilities related to oil & gas; numerous tank batteries, oil & gas storage yards and water pits Oil & Gas Facilities & Active Well Pads (Excludes Permitted Wells) 269 128 O • a O 3 Mile Cureton Proposed Facility Water Disposal Facility Oil & Gas Water Storage Compressor Station Unknown Oil & Gas Pit Pipe Storage Facility Active Location Existing Approved Location Closed Location Abandoned Location • A 0 a ,-: • 16 % 15 8 01 21 1 22 to Site compatible with surrounding land USES and compliant with Code 23-2-230(B)(3) Data provided by COGCC as of 2/22/18 Rings represent 122 and 3 mile radii from facility location 15 CUREEN MIDSTREAM Compatibility In Weld County: Facility Location/Neighboring Properties • 3 residents within 1/2 mile of proposed facility fence line Cureton under contract to purchase property • Homesite and shop for future employee 2. Landowner whom Cureton is under contract to purchase the "145 acres a. In person meeting with landowner to discuss proposed project � Mitigated concerns (sound and sight) • Noise modeling compliance is being driven by this residence location. • 12 residents located -3/4 mile from proposed facility fence line Extensive community outreach with these residents including, community meetings, phone calls, emails and multiple in person meetings 16 1993 Graph: Min, Avg, Max EIevat;o it 4528, 4958, 4589 It Range Totals. Distance: t'.% mr Elev caiP..L Qss. 38.6 ft, -40.6 ft Max Slope; 11.4%, -i 1. i ;, Avg Slope: 2.F.:,;), -2.41V: Site topography supports compatibility with Code 23-2-240(A)(10) - Buffering or Screening of the proposed USE from ADJACENT properties REFIN„ , MIDSTREAM Weld County Benefits & Project to Date Project Benefits • Cureton has invested $23 million in infrastructure projects in Weld County since June 2017 • Cureton plans to have invested over $120 million in total by the end of 2018 • Cureton excited about Weld County: Fantastic existing road infrastructure in the County No sales tax Low mill levy Easy draw for future employees to Weld County • Great Schools • Great Communities Pro business county — Supportive of Oil and Gas development County has financial reserves to ensure services and infrastructure to support community and businesses • Facility designed to pipe all NGL products and Residue Gas, alleviating truck traffic on Weld County roads new long term jobs created with Weld County Headquarters in Keenesburg, CO Well paying jobs with anticipated annual total compensation of $80K- $160K - On-the-job training to provide valuable skillsets for Weld County workforce Numerous other construction jobs during construction period of the project 100% of Right -of -Way (~66 miles) procured through good faith negotiations Picture of Cureton Gas Gathering Steel Pipeline Weld County January 13, 2018 18 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Project Design - Design Basis - Code Compliance Safety U M Gas Processing Facility RET:N 1DSTREAM Facility Design and Specifications • 60 mmcf/d Cryogenic Processing Facility - Honeywell Processing facility (UOP Russell subsidiary founded by Thomas Russell has been building modular gas facilities for the past 45 years) • State of the Art, standardized design includes modular design for quick and proven process and installation • Currently being built in Tulsa, Oklahoma — ISTI performing mechanical construction (19 years in business) - Buffalo Gap performing electrical construction (30 years in business) • Honeywell, ISTI and Buffalo Gap as a three company team have built 49 Cryogenic Processing facilities together over and have a proven track record and history. Honeywell uop Facility Rendering Buffalo Gap Irsinurienation INDUSTRIAL P• " )4 of . 44.•() SA4CiA'TiL Alva tiler rwt Cureton's turnkey contractors - Honeywell UOP Russell, ISTI and Buffalo Gap - have built 49 gas processing facilities together across the United States 20 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Our Commitment to Safety, Environment, and Health Stop Work AuthorityAll employees exercise Stop and contractors Work Authority on Cureton locations to communicate safety are authorized concerns to Total Recordable Incident Rate "TRIR" In 2O17, our employee year TRIR, was (recordable an industry incident leading per 1OO workers) for the 0.0. Corporate Safety Strategy Safety is built into corporate performance goals Community Engagement Ongoing neighbor communication for awareness and feedback Irate i Rana g ement Plan Cureton will testing utilize cathodic to ensure proper p protection, p compliance p smart of pigging, all safety ultrasonic systems �' and PSV Process Safety Management Compliance with OSHA Standards Safety Standards American Society of Mechanical Engineers SETTING THE STANDARD Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration .:. Depor1neni of fransp rtolion Pipeline and Hazardous Maltrials Safety Administration Occupational Safety and Health Administration DUREThN MIDSTREAM Environmental Water Quality • Considerations — Groundwater - Stormwater • Cureton safeguards In place - Integrity management Best management practices Engineered drainage and grading plan - Stormwater management plan and permit - Above -ground piping Closed drain systems - Secondary containment AirQuality • Considerations - Potential pollutants - Emissions • Cureton safeguards in place Air permit Fugitive emissions program Closed looped systems for gas and liquids Product is transported via pipeline reducing volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and CO2 The Front Range facility is regulated by multiple local, state and federal agencies COLOR A DO Department of Public Health & Environment OSHA 22 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Safety Systems Mechanical Operations ■ PRIMARY LAYER OF SAFETY SYSTEMS i SECONDARY LAYER OF SAFETY SYSTEMS Automated system provides first layer of safety measure. n Manual system provides a redundant safety system Multiple variables monitored such as pressure, level, flow, and temperature Manual pushbuttons located throughout the facility that could shutdown entire facility in emergency Predetermined inputs for alarm and shutdown of facility. Flare system providing for controlled release and cause and Effect chart governs setpoints and response. combustion for maintenance and overpressure conditions Fire Detection with UV/IR sensors that can detect ultraviolet or infrared light and automatically shut down the facility and isolate fuel sources in an emergency Air emission control eliminates venting of flammable vapors to atmosphere State-of-the-art mechanical safety systems supported by backup operational systems designed to provide safe facility operations 24/7 23 EM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Emergency Preparedness Cureton has engaged emergency planners and first responders to enure ) I Weld County Office of Emergency Management - Roy Rudisill (Director) • Hudson Fire Department - Chief Ken Gabrielson (Fire Chief) W S � On -Site facility walk- through (Pre -operations) •Annual ICS table top exercises Emergency Preparedness Partners ounty LEPC te- fir Local Emergency Planning Committee Cureton is committed to . - ..•s -,..,.. .,, .... — _J � ,i • •r:, r- ,. •- t/'- ,•fir- . ,;tea — i • Reverse 911 for cell phones • Promote participation campaign in the community through collaboration with Office of Emergency Management and Hudson Fire 24 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Code Compliance - Highly Regulated Industry Applicable Construction Codes Cureton Compliance Pressure Vessels American Society of Mechanical Engineers VIII, Division 1 Heat Exchangers American Society of Mechanical Engineers VIII, Division I & TEMA Welding and Brazing American Society of Mechanical Engineers IX Non -Destructive Examination American Society of Mechanical Engineers V Electrical American Petroleum Institute RP500 A; NEC Piping & Components Valves: Fittings: Pipe: American Society American Society American Society of Mechanical of Mechanical of Mechanical Engineers Engineers Engineers BS1.3 B16.10 B15.34 Relief Valves American Petroleum Institute RP 5201521 V Burner Management National Fire Protection Agency 87 Centrifugal Pumps American National Standards Institute, API -610 V Structural Design International American Building Society Code of Civil w/State Engineers Amendments 7-10 V -Wind American Society of Civil Engineers 7-10, Exposure C V=120 MPH, Category III, -Seismic SDC=Site American Society Specific Foundation of Civil Engineers Equipment Seismic Seismic Design: Ss 7-10, Design: / S1= Site Ss=100%, Site D, Specific le 1.25, 51=40% Structural Steel American Institute of Steel Construction #14 -2010 Steel Construction Manual V Structural Welding American Welding Society D1.1 Foundations American Concrete Institute 318-14 V al Applicable Operating Codes Cureton Compliance Pipeline Safety Administration and of Transportation Hazardous / Material Department V - Natural Gas 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 192' `ice - Natural Gas Liquids 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 195 V Facility - Management Process Safety 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1910.119 V Occupational Administration Safety and Health 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1903 and 1904 V Enviromental Protection Agency EPA 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart 0000, Part 112 V DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Safety - Integrated into the Process: Project Lifecycle Mechanical Design • System is designed for higher pressure than we will operate. Design pressure 1100 psig, Operating pressure 850 psig • Code requires 5% X-ray on welds. We -Ray 100% of the welds. • Pressure containing components are tested to 1.5X their design pressure (test pressure 1650 psig) Mechanical Integrity Program • Monitors thickness of material to determine if corrosion exists before there is a failure Control System • Redundant processors and power supplies, battery back-up allows for safe system shutdown on loss of power or component failure. Process Hazard Analysis • A design review of the facility that "what Ifs" different scenarios for all systems 26 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Safety - Integrated into the Process: Project Lifecycle (Continued) Relief Valves Provide overpressure protection for piping and vessels in the facility Remote location that allows the controlled venting and combustion of gas from manual valves, compressors, and relief valves. Emergency Shutdown Valves • Automatic isolation valves that shut in facility on loss of power or automatic shutdown Qualified Operators • Hire qualified operators that have initial and ongoing training. OSHA compliance, PSM compliance Standard Operating Procedures • cover all scenarios in the facility for startup, shut -down, and emergency situations 27 ET IN MIDSTREAM Public Outreach and Mitigation - Community Involvement - Public Outreach - Mitigation Community Involvement DuRET:N MIDSTREAM ew' Curoio., ,e7 lc roc 5 o eqs1 ctppi ere ; ice are 1co. are hie/ m c t I WS sir aer tsovir cro 5,13 r 6;/is!, If .c- FUTURES Weld County Sch i Weld Food Bank It real/ cc/ A safer,/II -4-1-1f • 7sre-cificer1/4/: e. Southeast Weld County F� r and Rod Participated in the youth livestock auction at the Southeast Weld County Fair and Rodeo Southeast Weld County Chamber of Commerce Bright Futures Colorado Weld RE -3J Weld Food Bank Active member and current "Business of the Month" Working with Ms. Tallent on developing a plan that fits Cureton (STEM & Vocational) Working with RE -3J on sponsoring STEM and vocational training at Weld Central Team volunteer actual time DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Public outreach Cureton's Outreach Efforts • Contact all ranchers, farmers and landowners within I mile of the project, surpassing the 500 foot Weld County required minimum, • Cureton held 3 community meetings since November, allowing for opportunity to receive feedback from the community • The meetings allowed Cureton and Honeywell to specifically design the facility to meet the requests of our Weld County neighboring landowners. • Cureton met individually with all landowners within the I_ mile outreach to address concerns and questions at a personal level and have since followed up with phone calls, emails and in person meetings with multiple of whom have asked for additional follow up. Cureton's outreach efforts go above and beyond to ensure effective communication with neighbors and compliance with Code 23-2-210(6)(4) First Community Meeting Q&A • Nov 14, 2017 • • Third Community Meeting Q&A •Jan 30, 2017 Second Community Meeting Q&A • Dec 18, 2017 Planning Commission Hearing • Feb 6, 2018 30 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Public outreach - Communication Channels Cureton used multiple mediums for its outreach efforts to make sure it easy to have an effective communication with landowners Mail: US Postal Service Project Website • Project Website: www.frontrangegp.com • 1-800 #: 833- CURETON (833-287-3866) 1-800 Number Email Platform: Bi- directional Project Facebook Page 31 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Community Meeting #1: November, 14th 2017 • Purpose: Meet community residents and landowners to make introduction to proposed project • Location: Southeast Weld County Fair Grounds in Keenesburg, CO 80643 • Invitees: All landowners within 1 miles radius Attendance: 12 • Format:Open house format allowing for landowners to come and go at their convenience, dinner provided Lace Theme Community Feedback Cureton Response/Solution Traffic 0 "How much additional Traffic on CR 51 and CR 1W" Intersection at CR 51 and CR 18 is dangerous today and has a blind hill" Listened to landowner concerns and comments Lights 0 "Do the lights have to stay on all night" "Facilities in Weld County Listened to landowner are lit up like a city at concerns and comments night, is this necessary all the time" Landscaping "How do you plan to control weeds" "Evergreens are fast growing" Listened to landowner concerns and comments Sight "Future Impact on Land Use" Listened to landowner concerns and comments "Can you plant trees around the facility" Cureton diligently listened to concerns and comments of neighbors to promote a collaborative effort on facility design 32 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Community Meeting #2: December, 18th 2017 • Purpose: Provide project updates while answering initial feedback received from community • Location: Ben's Brick Oven Pizza, Hudson, CO 80642 • Invitees: All landowners within 1 miles radius • Attendees: 11 • Format: Feedback from 1st meeting, project updates and Q&A session Cureton provided responses to comments from prior meeting and diligently listened to new concerns Theme New Comment Community Feedback Cu reton Response/Solution Traffic "Road suffers from severe rutting in Yes weather?" and "what will be done about dust" "Intersection at CR 18 and CR 51 is already dangerous" "Anything extra for the corner of 18 and 51 for traffic" How much additional Traffic on CR 18 and CR 51 No No No C Listened to landowner concerns and comments Cureton sent Weld County Public Works notification about landowner concerns and requested a study be conducted to alleviate residents concerns. 10-15 passenger vehicles per day and 2-3 commercial trucks per day Lights No Yes C "Facilities in Weld County are lit up like a city at night, is this necessary all the time" "Do the lights have to stay on all night" "What type and color lights are you installing at the facility" Engineering changed lighting plan to incorporate 8 light zones. Necessary for safety to keep 25% of the zones on during the night. Listened to landowner concerns and comments Sound Yes "How much ground vibration will there be at our house and sound noise" "Is this a 24 hour facility" Engineering added buildings around compressors and hospital grad mufflers to compressor engines. Also added 22 foot walls to encompass louder pieces of equipment. Noise modeling is representative of updated changes to the facility. Listened to landowner concerns and comments Sight C Yes " ist meeting we were told there was one tower and that would be 75 feet. Now its three Towers taller than 75 feet'" "What type of landscape or fence will Yes be in front of the project, can you plant trees to block the view" Cureton misspoke and updated the community with correct information. A total of 2 towers and flare ranging from approximately 90 to 145 feet. Listened to landowner concerns and comments Updates Yes Yes Cureton sends invites via USPS for meetings that "Would like an update on hearings and include hearing dates. Cureton posted all the application process" meetings and hearing dates on website and Facebook page. "Would like some documentation of o the information presented each time so we can see what changes as we get closer to build" Developed a Facebook group page to share documentation with landowners. 33 DUREThN MIDSTREAM Community Meeting #3: January, 30t" 2018 • Purpose: Provide project updates and discuss design changes from feedback at both 1st and 2nd community meetings, phone calls, emails and in person sit downs • Location: Southeast Weld County Fairgrounds • Invitees: All landowners within 1 miles radius • Attendees: 15 • Format: structured Q&A ThemeNew Comment Community Feedback Cureton Response/Solution Traffic "Road suffers from severe No rutting in weather," and ",what will be done about dust" Upon approval Cureton will enter into a Road Improvements and Maintenance Agreement with Weld County Light No "What type and color lights are you installing at the facility" Cureton is using energy efficient LED lights which meet safety lighting code for this type of facility. We have added downcast lights throughout the facility to block out ambient lighting. Sound Yes "How loud will the facility be" No Is this a 24 hour facility:, Noise modeling study will be shared once available (Completed Feb. 23). Yes, natural gas pipelines and processing facilities must provide continual flow and the facility will be operated and manned 24/7. Sight "Can you plant trees or provide No a shield to block the view of the fa cil.ity" No Yes Yes "Trees don't grow well in this area, what is your plan" "Can you install an 8 foot screen fence to block the facility" "Why does the flare need to be so tall„ Cureton has engineered a landscaping and screening plan which includes 6 foot natural berms with trees and landscaping as shown in the pictures presented here. Cureton has hired Norris Design to engineer a landscaping design utilizing data provided by the US Forest Service, CSU and Colorado Tree Coalition to select optimal plantings for the site. Due to community feedback, a natural screen with berms, trees and shrubs is the proposed sight screening with a 6 foot metal fence behind the berms. Due to safety, the flare is engineered to a height where the heat will not pose an issue. The flare's height also provides emission dissipation at levels much higher than ground level. Property Yes Value is my property value going to go down" We do not have any evidence your property value will be effected due to this proposed facility. 34 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Positive Public Support for the Project Lloyd Land Farms (CR 16 & CR 51, 1.5 mile south) • "It is found to be very compatible with our surroundings as well as the other oil and gas operations" • "The creation of various full-time jobs in our area will surely benefit and strengthen our local economy" • "In my knowledge of the engineering standards and dedication exhibited by Cureton, they will be operating the proposed facility and pipeline infrastructure with these same considerations always at the forefront." Ivan & Betty Hayward (CR 51,700' North of the Plant) Mi • "They have talked with the fire department at Hudson and have received a favorable response from them" • "We are impressed with their concerns with the safety of their employees as well as the surrounding community." • "We found them to be courteous and informative." • "The night lights will be located as to not cause a nuisance to the community since most of the houses are at least 2 mile away." I Tom Herzmann (0.6 mile North of CR 51 and CR 20) • "Cureton has been exceptional in demonstrating concern for their community." • "They have hosted several meetings with the public and have tried to take our feedback into consideration." • "I have seen that they try to work with residents toward resolutions which is more than any other oil and gas company has done in our area. I am in support of the Cureton project." Keller Property (0.5 mile East of the Plant) • "I wish that every President of companies... would attend community meetings... That shows a true commitment by the company to the community." • "Cureton does what they say that they are going to do and have followed through with their word." (In regards to pipeline construction) • "Cureton is committed to being a good partner in Weld County and to be a good steward of the environment and community" Weld County RE 3J School District 1 1 • "Cureton was responsive to all the district's requests and followed through on all of their commitments." • "I am confident that our Board of Education would continue working with them on other potential joint projects in the future." • "I believe Cureton Midstream is genuine in their interest and investment in our community." 35 DUREThN MIDSTREAM Ongoing and Future Outreach since Planning Commission Meeting Platform Location Purpose Dates Individual Meetings Phone Calls Continued dialogue with the community. February 2018 Individual Meetings In Person Sit Downs Continue Dialogue. Address concerns and questions. Work for February 2018 creative mitigation solutions. Planned Community Local Site Next Steps, Construction Schedules. Establish Communication Meetings Channels. March, June and August 2018 Planned Community Pre -Operational Start -Up Information Meeting. What to Expect Local Site Meetings during operations. Establish Communication Channels. September 2018 Hudson Fire Department and Weld County OEM Proposed Facility Emergency Action Plan Coordination Late June/EarlyJuly Hudson Fire Department and Proposed Facility Weld County OEM To take place before gas is introduced to the system. Training for jst responders on the operations of the plant. September 2018 Hudson Fire Department and Weld County OEM Proposed Facility Ongoing ICS Table Top Drills Throughout the Life of the Facility Community Engagement Local Site Continued Dialogue with the community. Throughout the Life of the Facility 36 ET IN MIDSTREAM Community Feedback: Compatibility and Mitigation Steps Traffic - Lights - Sound - Lan4scape Screening M Traffic and Road Use 1DSTREAM Traffic Overview • Cureton expects MINIMAL additional traffic impact on County Road 51 • Proposed route is along an AGRICULTURALLY zoned area 10-15 Passenger vehicles per day - 2-3 Commercial trucks per day • Traffic study not required due to MINIMAL traffic increase — County Road 49 (1.0 miles) — County Road 18 East (1.0 miles) - County Road 51 North (0.6 miles) Cureton's facility is designed to minimize truck traffic by transporting NGL products by pipeline, avoiding 50 trucks per day on Weld County roads 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Traffic Changes Before and After Facility In -Service 61 C 4-3 X W Cars 76 33 )0.0 C 4-1 .>< W 36 Trucks Existing Traffic data provided by Weld County Public Works as of 2/26/18 38 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Lighting : 8 total Light Zones, 2 Light Zones on at all times • Cureton has worked with Honeywell to implement the facility into Light Zones — The Facility will have 8 total Light Zones • 2 Light Zones will be kept on at all times for safety and operator use of facility at night (Zone I and Zone 4) • 6 Light Zones will be kept off and manually turned on in each zone as necessary for operator • Due to Community Feedback and Weld county Code, Cureton has designed the facility with minimal light disturbance 100% Downcast Lighting (significant reduction of ambient light) 100% Shielded Lighting (significant reduction of ambient light) i I I r 1 a J FLARE l 1 — I •. S.. 1• i. •:• l• •. it • •.. tall 1• i., M S. 1. 't. O. •' r1 .. •. .. t. as e. •+ •. r. •• I. t_ b. I. I. I. I, ■. I. t. I. L. I. 1 I. V. I. I. I. I. I_ 1- a •_ a 4. fo t . 4I 4. • • - •• t. b -t, _ .I •a a . Ito 't• •• •, a. •• •. •. e • a• •T •• ,•t s. 11 Is ea E. 11 1, • 11 I. H IN II t, is M 'tr 14 I. R• r. I. S. I. t. •• I. .i Is IT Is Rs lit S. b V 4i au Na • .: .• • •a •a •1 Oa Sal I- 11 a: t• As In I. 4. 4. +. ...............it. 1} to • • •. .. .. S. .- 1 e •. .I Si 9. b. I I. O I. l_ I. I• I. n. 1 I. 1 I• I 4. As Y• .l!7 .. . .. • .. �II.',�'y� 11'yJ1 •. 1n e. • 1, . a . -v.. 1 H. CT I. 1It s • la 10e: . Il , I I 4.l I. It IC true- - - . 4 JT .. •.Y A •I • H .. •. . • •. . . . .. L A.•t' i '. H. ailmin . •. u - Y. • I. I G I 4.4. 4 lip,1. I I.. • a, K. 1 I . 1. 4- . S. 'I • 1. I. i. • • 1 • t • • . .. .. P. t. ,. v. 1. 1• I. 1I 1. too •• I. la I. I. I. P. I I, It: t. I. !, I, 4 42 I. l• I. Se 4, 1, r, W I. S. It t -I I. 1. 1. 1• . t• 'Ls 1. I ' I. r• b I� I• •. \_ 11 1 I !t t I 1• IIt la a 11 14 I.I \ I • 1 Y. I l 11 I 1.• 11 1•. 1, S.. V. 4. 1. 0 I. :. a.. :• LI s. IL pa 1. ._ a.0.1,O. n• Si. li t_ 5. 4• 1. 1'.. IL II II SI. II I e. I. •sl b M lb b i. i, t• G. i fie •., 4. 4. r• I• 1. II. i• U.S,. I. •. -p.4.. T• •Y leg •1 tl .1 •e •1' r• •e 4• Y• •• II Ott r. •. •. at. 11. I. S. 11I. S. I. 4. E. It. 4. L Ila I. 0Ire. I• 4 e. •. I. 1.. I. I. I. I. ..1'i.I . .L. a. .0 one 5 4• 4. .4. .I. • L L 1• H bing 1a t. to A. I. s. .. . I. t. •11 1. b •• 1. fa A. 4. I. •. .. se of •• 44 •r I. I. II. I. 1.a. t. I one 4 I �•� N T W(. I R OM Vi bp s Lighf 'a ci one .I�i14 t. e• II e 1 1� Phi. 41 e. t01.‘„41t01.‘„41' I. .: .e. 4 P '. l I I• •1 � YI 1a 4 a. ■. S. I.'q S. 9. a. •• . •. ,, .. .. , • •/ a... V. to 11 14 1e 14 to to la I• 1. as I. 1. 1 p1 1. 1a I. • . L • !. 4. I. is. II •, b ! 41 1 I TA UNIT I I I— 1• Ii 1l It I I 1. 4e I. p. i• .1.i_ b. Ia I. 1. 1. I. I le 41 In I. I4. •. 1. I. I I i le 1. 1• S. O. ._ h11 I:I f1 II II to VI 1a to 1. T'L.LI 1.. ■_ 1. I. I. I, I. I. I• 4.. •1. 4. �./ ._ . •. U. •. 4• t. U.. 4. 4— a. y,.ey I. Vi t• La a• 1, 1. re. be L L t. ^1 •I U Re SI !t •1 !I It 4• 4• 'It N i. i •. .. •. •. 4• F. 4n 4. i. e. 1. i• b Sal t., •. I• •, SI et be is Ss I. li -t, ._ U. •. •_ •. •. •. 4. I.. i. _ I. Ii 1n 11 11 11 IN II L to 1'. Y. e I I, 1. S. 4. I. 1. I. S. l.. •_ • •. •. 11 11 In 111 I. I. S. p• IU. S. S• b •. ♦. •:.1 •. •• i. 4. In M. •. Y.I I. l,. 4. i. T. 4. i• it, iy r• i• 4. i• 4• i.. Ai SI rl '4t •• •• •. •, •4 4 I. S. S. I. S. I. II. S. •. I. I I. U. I. I. I. I. I. IL. G 5, ■.1 ■. I. I, I. I. 4. I. AI .. is .. •. . . •. •. s. iu +. .. ... • .. .. • •. •. • Y• 44 IS 1. .• , 4' 0 1e 1e e • , • - e 1• • 0 • a. 0 , t} riti su t1 •, •I •'. •• •' •I le en l' I1 al 11t e• }1 �_ .j.�Ij. L.. •. I- :�.al•. eI', I. I. I. b I. a. 1- I. 1e 1. U. I. •'rr' 5[Z •. •11 .v a. i. • • •l M. 4.p Y. ,. one 1r t i .aS t • i. L i 1. 11 4, 1 't. .. •iRiil 1. 1 W Is 1t b I.'. . e Is Ia 1• I k ••• b 1 i fit. -1)t v 1v b It, 4 to Ls to .' L. 1. ▪ y.• 11 .1ji S 1t. 4. eo S4 es Its I. 1. ., to t. to t1 I. a .. I• •• mss( �Ijir, tJs Y.f I. t. 4. 112 1• -t. L• I. I:. S• 1•. Y. 9 •.. 6 4t. 1, I. 4. 4. 4. F. 9. 4. S• I. 4.. 4. I. Si I. e. 4. S. a. 5. i. I. 4 At MrsL I4 S• la It lt le 1• le I, Is SS II b L /1 It ■I li t. is to I• 1• Ile 1s 4 U. Sa tlti le e. I. WU 1, Is 1• be •. 5.4.4,1.4,. .' •. aS b Si 4. b be •, I. 4 •• 1. Its its Is -4• r, I. I. 4' 1. I. S. In •. I. Ili Zone 2 a., ITr4 w1 t• tI 11 +t .. •• •, •. et , SI 4Y3t r 1a b,�i1 4 11 It. to 4. I 1, '•- •. n; a. •4 •a • a. 1: • • 1 1 , et Oa ti 1 ar 4. S. 4. 4a 1• I., 4. tP 4. a. S. 4. 4�4. L •� Ire b 1- +• 1.•. • . • ••• •• It =. •. •. U. I, I. II,1- .. „Lone +J+ 7 L. I. Sc 4. S.. i. LL, -11 2. Y. 1• •, Sr 1 1I 1, 1l ^ . I, F 1. 9 L. I. •. 'to • ... • 4. I. 1. 1. 1. • •, •• 1 20.1(1•4 .l f 14 r_+ e• 1• l• 1, •t •, q, • I tt I. 4. 1. i. ti•. • 114 1s In It 'l. ■ i Li Is ■• 1 U. I•. Itr'i •_ _ •• •• woo- a. li •. 5.5.4.'. fr b Ya 1': • 1. •• e, •e 11 Y• 11 I, II Y.• I. 4. 1. ■y Al As ■b I. I• It U I. I. Ir. 1.. 1- •I,• •. •u •• •• •• •. ♦. a., a, .I It la •1 Ii t, • is t. I.R . Ilt •! •e at •r ntlit • II -4! 4• •• r• •• 11 ay• 11 . I., 1'. • S. n Vt:14 , • y., t - t • r • •it - c. Tt 11 11 f-i 11 Si • I• I. I.. IT 1 Zone $ • . 41 B. •. , II ' all I. L I, el I, a It t. 1e 1a MI 4 it. 'Is II It 1• t1 It is 1. I. 4. a. a. S. 4- a. L. L I. Ala. :1. I• I. I. S. I- I- S. s.r e, Is 1w 12 b b e• f• W •, If at. I. 1. 1•f • I , •I IP •I •I Ual IN I, Ii II SI It St In I1 4•I S. I. . U. I. I. L. 4.� S+ i I. S. ■. is 4 I. 6 IL t. ii bi b li it I• 1, l• Sc le b 1I t. F.�1 a. IN. I_ 4_ a_ It Si to L T• `] I! Pt 1t TI I, L Re It 4 tat it S. I. I, 4 b b S. U. U. Y• S. 4 It It Si, I. At S. •. ,,. •. ••. a •. .. •- •_ la !.. b• Y. 6.. Op i. . a. 1. r. :: A i. 1a 1.) e, y •. •= -•I SI •, q 4' I• II M L 4 I. ■.. U. L N. I. L I. I. I. U. I. S. I. L U. .. iu i. E. e. .. a. I. Y. i. .• b. a• •. i. b i. t. IN I1 ., T. It I. v to s• _, 1. 1s t• 1• le t• ., e, I. ee IT wl •p Ise 4• es ., •• U. It II I 1t 'Si tI 1• 11 ti ! T tt II 41 e. L It 1a Is I. 1. I, S. b ■. i U.S. 1W l• b U, I. I. l• b at se •_ •1Y 4+ St O. 'l• St •L me It U a:l ♦. .. 4. t.l. •. w. Ide r• t. •• W R. Y. P. 4. U. I. 1. L it S. to ii Se t I. U. I. }. L _ e •I L_ •_ I. I. L •. a. IIY�. I� I. 1. ••. I. r ..MET - 4Il I. ■_ I. I• It 1. IL•JL..= - •• y I 1. \ e. f• I. 11 II fI Ie b to pall 14 a .1iLiL1. I Y. ■� G. 4• I. 1, S• S. Si I. 11a its Si 1, I• I• b 44 4 1s la la b h L 'b 4 It 4a •1p t. 1a b W I. I.. e. 4. I. 4. LI V t 't. M 6. 1. A. 1. 1. I. L. i_ M_ i_ r.. 6 1. 1. I. S. Y. 9, 1_ {_ S. ►. Y. S. Ns b 1r to hi b b 1. S. I. 1t t. I. I. LI In 1, !r It II Is It la M Ii 4 It II •t Sr It tv 1t L. L. 5.. L i. I. is L. 5. i. i. i. L. 4. 5. 1. i. 1.1 Y. .. Sa .. I.1 V 4 4 Y. 1• T. 4_ 4. ✓ . I. !. 1n Is b b bl b b b 4 ■. U. Ike Is b 4.1 I,. •_ •_ •.. •. e. :•_ s• •. •_ a_ •_ •_ a.I t Ut u. 0 t.. T.! i1.L lKS4 II 44 It I. 4a LI ..1fp'.lM1 •. 6 •• t. 1.� t_ •. •. S. 1_ a t. b •_ I. I_ T. 1L. 1, t; 1a I. II. II I. Is 4 b b LI S. 4.. 4. E. 9. 1• !. I. 4. I. 4. 4. ti S. 4. LI I1 i, i. it VI 4, 4t !] 9, 411 1s 1. bl 4 V. Ili to Si It er l4 b 941 I. S. b I. 1. 1• St 1, b L. L. So 11• fs t. ,. 1• tI 1I_ILLj.11/Y. p.,2,...,.s• It In sr Y• be b t, S •. •. ma 41 II C1S.II Ttii 1'iii 1 be IY Ii Yn VI •1 11 •I IL eP I• Yi FI •] le la I. L. L.. S. I. •`Y_l'i A. •.1 •• U. S. •.I. S. I. Gr I. I. s} w. - JJJ• 11 • se t . lea Ili y([�_�_I . + as Its Y I M • !n Wa S. yT b lw . t. f. 4, j• 't !R' 7 1. I. 4. S. b. 6. I. 9. 1.11-. at. Se f. 4. Is Is II Is t1 t• 1• as te tv •. to II 1, at; It So It Ii Is 1I ta e, s• IS /I I• It�1•`1- I -1~s IL - I — -- 1t t+ ■• to 14 a S. ,t ■it I• I• •d lY is Si 11 II II. 04 II So t* 1• 1. I. ll U. I. I. I. r. 1. •., N. •, •. I. Is 4. I. 4s !. •. 4. ra l• •..Jc1ac • r. i'i r. 4 r, la •. a• r. 4. III t. At •t t, •. Me 1. Is b ,� r, I �� I. 4 - • I L 1, 1. I, L. 'S. I* Is 11 14(b 1.e t. bit alto lie Le b I. II II II a SI IS St as 4 4 I• \I 4I 114 It 1S b1 I. I. 1. ■.. S. I. S. IL. S. Y. I. S. ■„ 1. M 1. 4. t, b I, rr. W " "ft " "I" w is Tb i. b }. 1.1 61/4 rap LEL ., be be In 4 b •• .. YI b r, :ls 4 O. U. r1. I. .. 4 W. T. 39 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM fighting Pictures: 3 -ID Model Rendering *Daytime Conditions Nighttime Conditions (All 8 Zones) Nighttime Conditions (Zones 1 and 4) *Lighting shown for "Daytime Conditions" for positional reference 40 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Sound: Study and Mitigation Plan Three Part Study and Plan • 3 -Part Study - Ambient Survey • Determine sound as it exists today Environmental Noise Propagation Model • Assess predicted operational impacts Proposed Noise Mitigation Plan • Noise reduction practices JURBAN SOLUTION Colorado Revised Statute § 25-12-103 Zone Maximum Noise Maximum Noise (dB(A)) Daytime (dB(A)) Nighttime Residential 55 d6(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Per the direction of The Department of Planning Services' Staff, this report utilizes the Colorado Revised Statue Title 25 - Public Health and Environment, Article 12 - Noise Abatement to ensure the facility adheres to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in Residential done as delineated in X25-12-103 C.R.S. 41 Ambient Survey Locations tioak URBAN SOLUTION GPOJP DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Proposed Facility Monitoring Location Monitoring Location I Igo nitori ng Location 2 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Ambient Survey ata Description Average (dBA) Average (dBC) Wind Speed (mph) Friday, November 10, 2017 43.71 62.13 3.4 Saturday, November 11, 2017 45.21 68.96 5.1 Sunday, November 12, 2017 44.21 63.20 3.9 Monday, November 13, 2017 48.78 61.89 3.9 Average 45.73 65.78 4.2 43 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Environmental Noise Propagation Model: Proposed Facility Equipment -c. (U!( 4 L �AN1 Quantity Equipment Manufacturer Model 2 Residue Gas Compressors CAT G3608LE 2 Residue Gas Compressors Exhaust GT LG-1 2 Residue Gas Compressors EAI CAT NA 2 Residue Gas Coolers Air -X 144-2Z 1 EC -101 Expander Compressor Skid LA Turbine LAT577EC- 1210 1 C-161 / C-162 Compressor GEA FES Inc. Grasso XC-I2IOGLE 1 C-110 / C-111 Stabilizer UEComp JGN/2 Compressor 2 A-361 Refridge Condenser Cooler Smithco 4 F48-140-2 2 A-301 / A-302 Cooler Smithco 1F30-119-2 1 A-161/162 Lube Oil Coolers Smithco 1F12-091-1 1 C-h4hRegenCompressor Sundyne LMC-311P 1 A-341 Regen Gas Cooler Smithco F24-080-2 1 H-781 Burner Heatec HCI-10010-50G 1 H-716 HMO Heater UOP Russell THM SH01000 1 H-741 Regen Gas Heater Heatec HCI-5010-40-G 2 A-310/311 Stabilizer Coolers Steeltek 1F08-060-1 2 P-613/614 Pump & Motor Schlumberger 5175N - 80 stg (010 A SOLUTURBN ION opoup 44 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Environmental Noise Propagation Model: Proposed Facility Property Line: URBAN SOLUTION GROUP URBAN JGP0LF SOLUTION Receptor I: Northern Property Line Receptor 4: Western Property Line Receptor 3: Southern Property Line Receptor 2: Eastern Property Line 45 DUREThN MIDSTREAM Environmental Noise Propagation Model: Unmitigated and Mitigated CPC P URBAN SOLUTION GROUP 46 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Sound Mitigation: Representative Samples hi 4i' Double walled, sound proof insulated building Acoustic ventilation as'- Scund diffuig mufflers e ny DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Landscape/Screening Schematic keyx rr .f PRvitt E 0 R YE VAC CURETON MIDSTREAM NATURAL GAS PLAINT [ SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE BUFFERING PLAN 02.23 2018 R S -R f E +1 :i. k 7'111 Rlf��fiJIJKti rib 0 jl!lI4 ; IXF F.iiro :u: IS L $.≥aL:; Vaal RIFY SAE I!IV J NORMS DESIGN Pawling Lnn,±seant1'a,.lciart Br It rg 49 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Site Survey: Location #1 0 CROW RAWr IIMTURA GAS PLANT VIEW MTUIWS NM" E:XI$TII40 CONDITION +•s ' a� ata •r• Site Screening with Proposed Facility 1 P ti ..fir. �' i>:i3��+� 4•i+' • �� `-•7 1 cy +� - :.�� i — — tea; .a` " ;"„•.^ ..`'- lsrFfry�mai 'ird �g O Proposed Facility ilensaa LL 1l -.Mat Li LI vv., tiara aY a liteultge.Y-i :4-s • r- _1n • ama*._• ^- e' .v '� t ...i -• _.. f.. ? __ i•.. I' -- • ii -1' .. ^-I— r 4 •« . le: .'it).'it)... .. yS ,..f�l4 �V.mil= '!r. -,41.10v. �t . .Y' �' ... 1.�. 0 t00 le! to • - Ft— _Et • ✓t y n ' '7124 --ar tiq r V. • e.10f'14.lr_ir.7 -_i. 4 9 S. .J r. • . 41 - a_n ilia.Fa�C FRONT RANGE NMTURAi1 $ PLANT VIEW '9TUC FS 1121 7111 PROP'Q$ED UNMITIGATED CONDITION tralsi cI. .Ero NW MIDSTREAM J,J-1 MUS DESIGN ast ELT rims Emm.n awn.. DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Site Survey: Location #3 FRONT RAKE I TURAL GAS PLANT VIEWS -TUNES naum EXISTING CONDITION CI ERIN MIDSTREAM N]f13IDES iGN L.. .wine lemma le isms, FRONT RANGE NATURAiI, $ PLANT VIEW '9TUC FS E] 21 71:.1 JjJJ NOWS DESIGN M. .m stamina _n ._,,. PR,QPQ$E0 UNMITIGATED CONDITION] Camera Location and Angle JURETN MIDSTREAM Site Survey: Location #5 Existing Condition Today FRONT IAN r Win PAL GAS PONT VIEW STUIWS nnn" EXISTING CONDITION ragp CI ETON MIDSTREAM ] 13 DESIGN L.. .'—ice, _s, Site Screening with Proposed Facility �.r MOW RANGE NATURAL GAS PLANT W1EW STUfS PROPOSED MITIGATED CoktITION 1 3 DES Ir' O Proposed Facility FRawT RANGE NATURAL Gits PLANT V1EW:STUD:ES IJ 217111 PR,QPQ$E0 UNMITIGATED CONDITION Cirrni Apr MIDSTREAM rionis DESIGN a a' ..i, lamps .—, CANE FA LOCATIONS DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Site Survey: Location #6 DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Weld County: Letters Received to Date Concerns/Objections Weld Planning brought Department to Cureton's Response County CR 51 dust and Road Damage Road Maintenance Public Improvement and Agreement Works with Visibility of Flare and Paint blending scheme to of natural achieve a backgrounds Tower Noise Noise Plan Modeling and Mitigation Lighting Lighting controls Plan with manual zone Cumulative Impacts Compatible uses in the with area existing land Ground Water Contamination Integrity Management Program Air Pollution Comply Permit #17WE10 with CDPHE approved o Air Ground Vibration Impacts Noise Plan Modeling and Mitigation Impacts on Wildlife Fencing during and operations. ongoing monitoring Weed Control Integrated maintenance with landscaping 57 CURER] MIDSTREAM Conditions of Approval Conditions of Approval Cureton's Response IA Written Well Evidence of a Commercial Utilize Recorded Residential Cureton of plat. Certificate the requests Well Exemption of Permit Commercial. this Occupancy the # 233845. well COA be instead will submitted Upon be re -permitted of recording approval prior to of from issuance of the the to 1B Design Disposal of an Individual System Sewage conducted is forthcoming. requests Certificate this of Occupancy percolation COA be submitted instead test on of recording 2/14/2018. to Terracon Design Cureton of plat. prior issuance of the 1C Final Drainage Report and Certificate Submitted of Compliance to Weld County 2/22/2018 1D Improvements and Agreement Road Maintenance Upon approval of USR Public Works will send to Cureton 1E Landscape/Screening Plan Final plans submitted to Weld County 2/22/2018 1F Lighting Plan Final plans submitted to Weld County 2/23/2018 1G Noise Abatement Plan Final plans submitted to Weld County on 2/23/2018 1H Communications Plan Final plans Submitted to Weld County 2/22/2018 58 DUREThN MIDSTREAM Development Standards Development Standards Curetonis Response 24 and 39 The facility shall notify the County of any Duplicate Development Standard revocation and/or suspension of any State issued permit. 37 Necessary personnel from the Weld Cureton would request 24 hour notice prior to entrance on to the County Departments of Planning site. Per Cureton's safety program and OSHA► regulations a safety Services, Public Works, and Public orientation is required prior to entering the proposed facility. Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. 59 CUREEN MIDSTREAM Code Compliance DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Weld County Code Compliance Weld County Code IIMPs Compliance Status ode Lary CuTeton Compliance 23 -2 -220.A.1/23 -2-230.A.1: The proposed USE is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-20.1 (A. Goal 9) • Reduce uses in the potential conversion lands conflicts to other of traditional between uses." varying land agricultural •The • Noise Mitigation Mitigation proposed converting Modeling Surface Landscaping/Screening plans Plan facility Mitigation and to agricultural review were reduce has Mitigation submitted and developed Plan potential approval land to Plan to include to a Plan, other comprehensive and conflict Weld a uses County a Lighting from for NO" Section --1+D • • "extraction part of of the natural economy resources of the is an County." important •The increased •The the proposed county's facility capacity will currently production facility industrial aid for in will relieving exist future economic in contribute Weld in marketing capacity the County DJ base to Basin the constraints by of expansion providing oil and gasSti of that Section 22-5-100 (A) •states reasonable development that a County and of oil orderly and goal gas is exploration mineral to "promote and resources." the -The that *Per use However, support, the clustered proposed Chapter by Special proposed right and oil 23, in Review facility close and associated site oil the to and A gas (USR) (Agricultural) is is other consistent within gas WOGLA storage services permit facilities oil agricultural and facilities, in Zone with require gas Weld are this facilities District allowed oil County land, a section and Use and with as gas by in is a NI Section 22-2-20.G.2.A. Policy 7.2 residential, should •Conversion be accommodated area that attempt commercial can of support to agricultural be when compatible and such the industrial land subject development, with to nonurban uses site the should is region.r7 in an and • The semi •The to •The agreement Platteville, -rural ;The • proposed proposed The proposed to proposed residue area and a proposed with 69kV Greeley facility where gas facility facility gas a tenant acres activity power facility source facility and and is there is is of located situated line farmer 1-76. requires located NGL the to is already has operate a within takeaway property United entered significant to on near this within agricultural occurring the farm Power CR area type close into the pipelines amount 49 of a is western land for installing power proximity lease access of in 50 a oil ill DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Cureton Adherence to Weld County Code held gun Lan ua � ureters m � liana Compliance status Section --.+_ B_Of.+oal 2uses."•The available • "Ensure conserves surrounding use," while "Ensure conserves surrounding • Section objective state, the mineral that will that minimize that Section 22-5-100.B, to, operator the land the land the the "imposeprotective County land land extraction and extraction and p current 22-5-100.B conducts and and the (0G. and impacts." minimizes existing minimizes existing federal and of of Policy (0G. oil o future oil p erations and surrounding and surrounding 2.9) measures regulations the Goal2) the gas gas environmental resources impact strives resources impact outlines through in a to manner5' land land on on the ensure to, *The in amount • • United agreement ` The The Federal, proposed a semi proposed access Power proposed proposed ' to ensure -rural of oil � with State to construction facility and is area facility Platteville, installing facilit source a acres health, facility tenant and gas the is where Weld of . requires safety located activity is area to has farmer the situated a operate and Greeley County there 69 entered property and operation. already kV to on is this farm agricultural a near and power type into regulations welfare significant occurring Yp CP 1-76 line the of a land 49 for within power lease western exist during Si 22-2-100 A.2 0C Policy 1.2 to • Oil geology industrial review and gas support for locations areas, in accordance when should this possible, facilities with the Code. locate which and appropriate in should do commercial not rely be subject sections on and of • The in amount •The The proximity • Site • agreement Platteville, installing • The proposed a semi The proposed p Infrastructure topography proposed site proposed to -rural of oil is p residue with a 50 facility and situated Greeley 69kV a area facility tenant acres source facility gas provides facility gas neighbors is where power benefits and of activity near and located requires to has farmer the is 1-76. line there GP operate located NGL natural entered property are already United to on 49 within this takeaway is site farm agricultural for buffering a within into yp type significant the specific occurring access Power the a area of close pipelines lease western power is from land to DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Cureton Adherence to Weld County Code Weld County tY Code Code Language Cureton Compliance Compliance Status 23 -2 -22O.2/23 -2-23O. B.2 The proposed of the A use is (Agricultural) consistent Zone with District, the intent *Section lighting including •The (including of Special the •The facility facility proposed plan, 23-3-40.A.2 Review Oil and a noise Plant) location landscape/screening on the surrounding Permit Gas Development provides in pipelines abatement adjacent Support the for is ppp Mineral A based land for and (Agricultural) and Standards plan)will properties a Service on infrastructure uses Site Resource proximity plan, and assist Specific and (Cryogenic Zone and. maximum the ensure Development to Conditions in region. District. Development existing mitigating noise compatibility Gas oil of standards, Processing the Facilities and Approval Plan impacts gas with and 23-2-22O.3/23-2-23O.B.3 •The compatible uses with which the will existing uses. be permitted surrounding will be land • •Cureton Modeling •The The •Cureton meetings • Mitigation potential • •There The Mitigation residence next proposed and implemented closest has conflict are property with Plan Mitigation plans three located purchase had specific property landowners facility to from owners 3 include were residences seller community a Plan landowners converting 700 robust has submitted upon is of within developed a and approval feet 1600 the via Landscaping/Screening approval Community within phone a to project meetings Lighting feet 1 -mile as agricultural to the Weld 1/2 to well and a north of site comprehensive the the of Outreach and as Mitigation mile the email County is southwest USR facility multiple conversations land of under the for to program Plan, Plan other review property contract individual and Surface to Noise is reduce uses for with and the to all 41 23-2-220.A.4/23-2-23O.B.4 *The compatible surrounding zoning projected Code or ordinances uses and and Plans which with area with by Chapter any other in of affected the effect, will future as applicable permitted future 22 be development or municipalities. of the permitted development the code adopted by Weld the provisions will of existing County the Master be as •The •The Cureton •The • site site No is located is also County Town moving referral of of Cooperative Hudson located Keenesburg forward responses within within with the and Planning indicated 10/31/2017 were three the the (3) Town the boundaries Agreement County received that mile of process from Keenesburg they referral of the the (EGA) had in Town no their areas of Keenesburg/Weld boundary concerns e-mail of Hudson the Town with41 dated DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Cureton Adherence to Weld County Code Weld co u n code code Lary u� a cu reto n core lianc coat pliance --220_A.--230.8.: the • Is Special the Geologic proposed Airport Flood Hazard Overlay Hazard facility Overlay District. located Area District, or the within a • The proposed facility overlay is not y district located within an23. 23 -2 -220.A.6/23 -2-230R6: • The diligent agricultural g decision applicant effort land for the has demonstrated to conserve in the proposed prime locational use. a agreement * • Lease The proposed includes with a 50 acres facility tenant water of has farmer to entered the property p irrigate to farm p formerly into y the a lease western dry land SI" 23-2-220.A.7/ 23-2-230.117: • County that and and The 240, Standards the there Design Weld Development protection welfare neighborhood Code), are Standards County (Section of Conditions adequate of the the Code), Standards inhabitants and 23-2-250, health, (Section provisions County. of Operation Approval, ensure safety, of 23-2- Weld the for landscaping, • • Approval These Health, • Code, The drainage, Development oversight Safety State ensure light on and public and and adequate mechanisms mitigation, Federal Welfare Standards off communication site laws are water, road noise and run ensured and waste maintenance, with abatement regulations Conditions the by disposal, property County of and DUREffiN MIDSTREAM Closing Remarks • Cureton is seeking approval for USR 17-0065 Cureton Front Range Gas Facility • Key reasons why approval is requested: Site compatible with surrounding USES (23-2-220 of the Weld County Code) Committed to being a good, and involved, citizen in the community Cureton's presence through community outreach and support of local community agencies has already had a positive impact The Project will promote the Weld County tax base and we enhance businesses and mineral production in Weld County Cureton complies with all county, state, and federal regulations ensuring a safe, reliable facility It has incorporated valuable community feedback and comments and taken significant mitigation steps (lighting, noise, landscaping) to ensure that we can integrate this project into the landscape with minimal impact and be compatible with adjacent land uses The USR Project meets all applicable Code requirements 65 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Q&A 66 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Appendix DURETU\ MIDSTREAM Individual landowner and Government Agency Meetings to Date Government Agencies Agency/ Individual In Person One on One Landowner Meetings Individual 9/19/2017 10/4/2017 10/4/2017 10/5/2017 11/8/2017 11/8/2017 2/13/2018 Town of Keenesburg, Town Manager, Mayor, Planner Director Roy Rudisill; Weld County, Office of Emergency Management, Director of Emergency Management Ms. Stephanie Hackett; City of Brighton. Emergency Management Town of Hudson, Town Manager and Planner Chief Ken Gabrielson, Lt. Justin Hindman Hudson Fire Chief Ken Gabrielson, Lt. Justin Hindman Hudson Fire Ms. Debra Chumley; Town of Keenesburg, Town Manager 10/23/2017 10/24/2017 10/30/2017 10/31/2017 11/7/2017 11/7/2017 11/7/2017 11/7/2017 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/14/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/22/2018 2/24/2018 2/26/2018 Mr. Justin Jackson Mr. Richard Robertson Mr. & Mrs. Ivan & Jane Hayward Mr. David Bell Mr. Ross McAdow and Tara McAdow Ms. Barbara Ries Mr. & Mrs. Ivan & Jane Hayward Mr. & Mrs. Ivan & Jane Hayward Mr. Mrs. Thomas and Jamie Herzman Mr. Pat DeNiro Ms. Barbara Reis Ms. Barbara Reis Mr. Rick Robertson Ms. Barbara Reis Mr and Mrs. Tom and Jamie Herzmann Mr and Mrs. David and Ellen Swieter 68 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM NRCS Soil Map: Tree Growth • USDA results show that soil surrounding Cureton's proposed processing facility is loamy or loamy/sand which is capable of growing and sustaining plant life (#47, 49, 15) 70 - Valent sand • 49 - Osgood sand • 44 - Olney loamy sand • 47 - Olney fine sandy loam • 79 - Weld loam • 15 - Colby loam Data obtained by USDA Web Soil Survey on 2/22/18 69 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Process Safety Management PSM Themes Topics Completion Timeline 1 Process Safety Information Materials of construction November 2017 Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams Heat and Material Balance Electrical Area Classification Relief Study Design Codes and Standards Cause and Effect 2 Process Hazard Analysis Identify, Evaluate, Control Hazards of Process January 2018 3 Operating Procedures Initial Start-up August 2018 Normal Operations Temporary Operations Normal Shutdown Emergency Shutdown Start-up from Turnaround or Emergency Shutdown 4 Employee Participation All employees have access to Process Safety Information and have received orientation August 2018 5Em ploy to ee Trainin g Initial September 2018 Refresher Ongoing 6 Contractors Site/ Safety Orientation, Supervision September 2018 7 Pre -Start -Up Safety Review Checklist to ensure compliance with construction construction standards and completeness of October 2018 S Mechanical Integrity Inspection and testing of process equipment on a 3 -year basis Ongoing 9 Hot Work Permit Authorizes work in hazardous areas where flammable vapors and ignition sources may exist August 2018 10 Management of Change Design review and implementation to ensure meet changes code compliance to process equipment after initial PHA January 2018 11 Incident Investigation Identify incident causes so the procedures can occurances be implemeted or modified to prevent future Ongoing 12 Emergency Response Planning and Emergency Pre -planning and training September 2018, Ongoing 13 Compliance Audit Ensure compliance with the 14 points of PSM Every 3 years 14 Trade Secrets Ensure all employees have access to all process proprietary information, even that which is considered Ongoing 70 DuRET:N MIDSTREAM Groundwater and Surface Water Quality Groundwater and Surface Water Quality Equipment/Process Best Management Practices Regulatory Agency Timeline for Implementation Facility Piping and Equipment Integrity Management PAM - OSHA Process Safety Management Operations) Manual (60 Days prior to Closed Drain Systems for Lube Oil Secondary Containment EPA 40 CFR Part 112. Construction of Countermeasure 6 months the Facility Plan (per of startup Spill EPA 40 of Prevention CFR the facility) Part Control 112 within and Process Skids Secondary Containment EPA CFR 40 Part 112 Construction Countermeasure of the 6 months Plan Facility of (per startup Spill EPA 40 of Prevention CFR the facility) Part Control 112 within and Stormwater Activities and Permit associated Management for Construction with Gas Plan oil and Erosion and Sediment Controls Colorado Health Quality Discharge County Drainage and Engineering- Department Division Report/Grading Environment Permit - Colorado S stern Y2/22/2018 GradingAnd of - Public Water Weld Permit Submitted Permit 10 days to Weld County p rior to construction.sWl for review and approval P - on Potential Pollutants Best Management Practices AIL Regulatory Agency Timeline for Im • lementatio , Lube Oil Secondary Containment/Enclosures EPA/OSHA/Local LEPC All containment pollutants or are either within Warehouse). an enclosure placed in secondary (Conex Box or Antifreeze Secondary Containment/Enclosures EPA/OSHA/Local LEPC All containment pollutants or are within either placed in secondary an enclosure (Conex Box or Warehouse). Process Water Secondary Containment/Enclosures EPA/OSHA/Local LEPC All containment pollutants or are within either Warehouse). an placed in secondary enclosure (Conex Box or Methanol Secondary Containment/Enclosures EPA/OSHA/Local LEPC All containment pollutants or are either within an Warehouse). enclosure placed in secondary (Conex Box or Industrial Chemicals Lubricants ( i.e. Wd-40 } Secondary Containment/Enclosures EPA/OSHA/Local LEPC All containment pollutants or are either within an Warehouse). enclosure placed in secondary (Conex Box or 71 JURETN MIDSTREAM Aerial Image CR 18 & 51 - Blind Hill sallSalissimprirer- L1987 (t 4980 ft 4972 ft 4864 ft 18 2018 FGOu1IR Google Earth Imagery Date: Or9/2017 40=O7'09.00" N 104235'07.69" VI elev 4972 ft eye alt 7114 ft Clap: 110in. Avg. Max Elevation: 4964.4976.4967 ft Range Totals Distance. 0.52 mi Elev Gai o..oss. 1 F,T tt,-28.31t Max Slope: 6.8%, -T.1., Avg slope. 1.7%. -1,6% 4987 ft -0.1 Tour Guide 0.05 Fru 0.10 in 791 ft. 0.27 rn, .0,25 rtv, 0.30 In, 0.6'2 in 72 hi�Locatio._ tc.. . • - a Lt. _t > 01,5 _ I a . 1 _ L. _�'1�1i t ' ' i it, -- I!{,� _a _,..imic ,,,„ .,,,,,, ,.... car• Lb* Y s _ p _ r N. rr I fill , , } !FRONT mum NATURAL GAS fr LAW - VIEWSTtJUIES 47 VS i4 C Moil ERA LOCATIONS PJ D to a �I C , Ji�FTi lf,Neoltaiji MIDSTREAM J ft - DUREThN MIDSTREAM Planning Commission Comments PC Comments from 2.6.2018 Commissioner 1 • "there are a lot of producing wells that are being shut in temporarily because the pipelines are over pressured to take it and questioned the timeliness of why this is important. He indicated that maybe there should be a Plan B." a Cureton Response to Plan B ■ In October of 2017 CM met with the Town of Keenesburg to discuss the ICA. At that meeting Annexation was brought up by the then Town Mayor Kipp. Per the Town Manager, Debra Chumley, Keenesburg could not begin the 7+ month process of annexation outside of their 3 -mile radius until May of 2018, delaying the start of the project 10-12 months. • Timing does not work with Cureton's schedule. • Cureton is open to having future discussions with Keenesburg about annexation in the future. ■ There is no backup site. Question the timeliness of the project - Commissioner l's comment is the accurate response to the timeliness. Processing and gathering capacities are constrained throughout the basin resulting in over- pressuring of lines, unsafe operations and flaring. This system aids to alleviate those concerns. Commissioner 2 • "cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 and said that he has a hard time reconciling residential areas and evacuation plans." I-; Cureton Response ■ The area surrounding the proposed USR facility is an agricultural zone district. ■ Cureton takes the safety of its facility, employees and the community very seriously. To that end Cureton has met with the Emergency Management office of Weld County and Hudson Fire Department to ensure all support agencies and Cureton are approaching the development and implementation of Emergency Action Plans to properly prevent, protect and alert all stakeholder sin the event of an emergency. ■ How do we address the direct comment about residential vs. evac plans?? Commissioner 3 • Motioned for denial based on Section 22-2-20 [Compatibility] a Section 22-2-20 ■ The proposed facility has developed a comprehensive Surface Mitigation Plan to include a Landscaping/Screening Plan, Noise Modeling and Mitigation Plan and a Lighting Mitigation Plan to reduce potential conflict from converting agricultural land to other uses. Mitigation plans were submitted to Weld County for review and approval. 79 Tisa Juanicorena From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Chris Gathman Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:10 AM Tisa Juanicorena Esther Gesick; Bob Choate FW: USR17-0065 Farm Lease Agreement for 50 Acres Robertson farm lease 18.2.26.pdf Here is another exhibit for tomorrow's hearing. Regards, Chris Gathman Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue tel: 970-400-3537 fax: 970-400-4098 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Nick Holland [mailto:nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:08 AM To: Chris Gathman <cgathman@weldgov.com> Subject: USR17-0065 Farm Lease Agreement for 50 Acres Chris Please see the attached signed agreement for the tenant farmer to farm 50 acres. THanks Nick Holland I Director EHSR O: (720) 390-4506 C: (303) 324-5967 nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com co k 2 s EXHIBIT l.I 1 AGRICULTURAL FARM LEASE (CASH) Dry - Land LESSOR'S NAME: FOSSETT COLUMBINE, LLC ADDRESS: 518 17TH STREET, SUITE 650, DENVER, CO 80202 TELEPHONE: (720) 390-4506 E-MAIL: nick.holland@curetonmidstream.com LESSEE'S NAME: RICHARD ROBERTSON ADDRESS: 8537 COUNTY ROAD 51, KEENESBURG, CO 80643 TELEPHONE: (303) 961-0031 E-MAIL: pri.rickrobertson@gmail.com THIS AGRICULTURAL FARM LEASE (referred to herein as "the Lease"), made and entered into this alb ty of February, 2018, by and between FOSSETT COLUMBINE, LLC, hereinafter referred to as LESSOR, and RICHARD ROBERTSON, hereinafter referred to as LESSEE, shall be as follows: IT IS AGREED between LESSOR and LESSEE that in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, as recited herein, and the promises and covenants contained herein, LESSOR agrees to lease to LESSEE and LESSEE agrees to lease from LESSOR the real property, depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth upon the following terms and conditions. REAL ESTATE DESCRIPTION 1.1 The real estate which is subject to this Lease is located in Weld County, CO, and is depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The real estate which is subject to this Lease is sometimes referred to herein as "the Farm". II TERM OF LEASE 2.1 Unless sooner terminated pursuant to Articles XV or XVII, this Lease shall commence on the 1st day of April 2018, and shall end without additional notice of any kind on the 31$` day of March, 1 2023. 2.2 LESSEE agrees that he will possess and occupy the Farm continuously during the term of this Lease and that he will surrender possession and occupancy of all of the premises peacefully at the end of the term of this Lease unless terminated earlier as herein provided. It is understood by the parties hereto that the LESSEE shall have no rights whatsoever to hold over beyond March 31, 2023, unless an agreement to allow hold -over or continue the term of this Lease has been reduced to writing and signed by the parties to this Lease. 2.3 Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this Lease shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of both LESSOR and LESSEE, the same as if they were the original parties to this agreement, unless by mutual written agreement the parties agree otherwise. III CASH RENT 3.1 LESSEE agrees to pay to the LESSOR cash as rent for the Farm the sum of $18.00 per acre per year on a yearly basis with the first payment due December 31, 2018 (the "Rent"). For all purposes, the acreage of the Farm is agreed to be 50.0 acres. 3.2 The parties acknowledge that this is a cash Lease. LESSEE agrees to pay cash Rent to LESSOR without further demand or notice from LESSOR. 3.3 Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Farm Lease. IV FARM PROGRAMS 4.1 Subject to Paragraph 4.2, with regard to participation of this farm in any Government Farm Programs, the division of government payments between LESSOR and LESSEE shall be as follows: LESSEE 100% on all crops planted by LESSEE through the termination of this Lease. 4.2 LESSEE shall not enter the Farm into any Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or any other government program, including without limitation, the wheat and feed grain programs, without express written permission of the LESSOR. 4.3. If LESSOR approves of same, LESSOR may at LESSOR'S option execute an FSA power of attorney to LESSEE for purposes of signing up for programs with the FSA office. 4.4 LESSEE shall not jeopardize or cause any loss to LESSOR of any program crop base acres and this provision shall apply to all crops even though a particular crop may not be the subject of 2 production controls during the term of this Lease. All increases in crop base acres attributable to the Farm shall remain with the land at the end of the lease period. VI LESSEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 LESSEE shall be responsible for and will pay 100% of all of the crop production expenses. LESSEE shall not allow anyone to place a lien upon LESSOR'S real estate, or any improvements or property owned by LESSOR, as security for payment of crop expenses. 6.2 LESSEE will use the Farm as a farm and will not use or permit the Farm to be used for any unlawful business purpose. In addition, LESSEE will not grow marijuana or cannabis crops. 6.3 LESSEE will cultivate the Farm in accordance with the best known and approved farming practices and in a good and husbandry -like manner, will farm on the contour when appropriate, use minimum tillage or no tillage farming practices whenever possible or when requested by LESSOR. LESSEE will take all precautions known or available for the prevention of soil erosion and maintenance of the top soil. 6.4 LESSEE acknowledges that the soil on this Farm is susceptible to wind and water erosion, and LESSEE agrees to plant only crops which will result in maximum residue on the surface of the land. LESSEE shall exercise due care at all times to avoid wind and soil erosion. 6.5 LESSEE shall not do or commit any act for any purpose that will contribute to excessive erosion on highly erodible land or convert any wet lands or disturb any of the native pasture or other native lands which could result in a violation of 7 CFR 1940, G Exhibit M, commonly referred to as the Sodbuster and Swampbuster Acts. In the event that the LESSEE should do anything that would violate these acts, this Lease may be terminated by LESSOR immediately without further notice. LESSEE further agrees to hold LESSOR harmless from any and all actions which might be taken by any state or federal government agency or commission or any other person in the event of a violation of these acts and shall be financially responsible for compliance of any rules or orders issued to bring the Farm back into full compliance. This responsibility of the LESSEE under this provision shall survive and extend beyond the expiration or termination date of this Lease. 6.6 LESSEE shall, each crop year, prepare the Farm for crops, plant the crops and care for the same in a timely fashion at times which are generally accepted as proper farming times and practices for this area. 6.7 LESSEE agrees that at no time during the term of this Lease will oil, grease, chemicals, toxic materials or hazardous waste (as defined in any state or federal laws) of any nature be disposed or otherwise introduced anywhere on the Farm. All chemical barrels and containers shall be disposed of in accordance with EPA regulations as the same exist on the date of disposal. LESSEE'S responsibility under this paragraph shall survive and extend beyond the termination date of this Lease. 3 6.8 LESSEE will not apply to the Farm any herbicides or any other chemicals which will have carry-over residue beyond the current lease year (a Lease Year being April 1, to March 31) unless expressly approved in writing by the LESSOR. 6.9 LESSEE agrees to insure any and all equipment and other personal property which LESSEE furnishes for the operation of the Farm. LESSEE understands that LESSOR will provide no insurance for such equipment and other personal equipment and hereby releases LESSOR from any claim or liability except in the event of any intentional damage caused solely by LESSOR. 6.10 In the event that it becomes necessary for the LESSOR to employ an attorney for purposes of interpreting, defending or enforcing any of the terms of this Lease, including efforts to regain possession of the Farm in the event of a default by LESSEE, LESSEE shall pay LESSOR'S reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses upon demand. 6.11 LESSEE shall hold LESSOR harmless from any actions taken by any governmental agency or any other person which may be brought as a result of LESSEE'S oil, grease, chemical, toxic material or hazardous materials applications, or the disposal or any containers for the same, or violation of any governmental rules and regulations and/or failure to comply with Paragraph 6.7 of this Lease. In keeping with this, LESSEE agrees to abide by any rules or regulations promulgated by any governmental agency. The responsibilities of this provision shall survive and extend beyond the expiration or termination date of this Lease. 6.12 The LESSEE shall notify LESSOR within 24 hours of any loss, casualty, personal injury or other damage occurring at or related to the Farm. VII LESSOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES 7.1 LESSOR agrees not to interfere with the proper and normal operation of the Farm by LESSEE, provided the same is being used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Lease. 7.2 LESSOR will be responsible for the payment of the real estate taxes assessed against the property. VIII RIGHT OF ENTRY BY LESSOR 8.1 LESSOR shall have the right to come upon the property at any reasonable time, without being guilty of trespass, for purposes of inspecting the same. LESSEE hereby grants unto the LESSOR the right to come upon the property for this purpose and holds the LESSOR harmless from any liability in connection with LESSOR'S proper performance of these requirements. In addition, LESSOR shall be allowed to enter for the purposes of showing the Farm to prospective buyers, lenders and prospective tenants. 4 Ix CROP RESIDUE 9.1 All residue from the crops grown upon the above -described property shall be the sole property of the LESSEE and LESSEE agrees to arrange for the removal or disposal of all residue in a manner satisfactory to LESSOR so as to eliminate volunteer growth for future crops. Upon request of LESSOR, all residue will be removed by December of each year of. X SUB -LEASE AND ASSIGNMENT 10.1 LESSEE shall not sub -lease all or any part of the Farm nor assign this Lease to any other person or entity without the express written permission of the LESSOR. Before any Sub -Lease Agreement shall become binding, LESSOR shall first approve in writing the Sub -Lease Agreement. 10.2 An assignment of this Lease shall be deemed to have taken place when all or substantially all of the farming operations are performed by one or more third parties hired or contracted by LESSEE to perform farming operations, which will, at LESSOR'S option, be deemed a default unless approved by LESSOR in writing. 10.3 LESSOR may assign this Lease in conjunction with any sale of the Farm. XI INSURANCE 11.1 LESSEE shall carry the following types and minimum coverages of insurance: A) Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with the laws of the State of Colorado. B) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance issued by a company reasonably acceptably to the LESSOR, in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 on the LESSEE'S operations while using and occupying the premises covering all of its operations under this Lease. LESSOR shall be named as an additional named insured under the LESSEE'S comprehensive general liability insurance C) Automobile Liability Insurance on all owned, non -owned, hired or leased automotive equipment used in conjunction with LESSEE'S operations. 11.2 LESSEE agrees to deliver to LESSOR certificates of insurance for the coverages described above. The certificates of insurance shall provide that the coverages will not be materially changed or cancelled by the insurer or any insured thereunder, unless thirty (30) days' advance written notice has 5 been given to LESSOR. In the event LESSEE fails to provide Certificates confirming compliance herewith or LESSOR receives notice of termination or cancellation, LESSOR may but is not required to obtain such insurance and any premium paid by LESSOR for such insurance will be deemed additional rent and be due no later than 10 days after demand by LESSOR. XII HOLD HARMLESS 12.1 LESSEE agrees to indemnify and hold the LESSOR harmless: A) By reason of the injury to persons or property from whatever cause (other than gross negligence or misconduct by the LESSOR, its employees or agents) while in, on, or near the premises or in any way connected with the Farm or with the improvements or personal property in or on the premises, including any liability for injury to the person or personal property of the LESSEE, his agents, or employees. B) By reason of any work performed on the premises or materials furnished on the premises at the instance or request of the LESSEE, his agents or employees, other than the gross negligence or misconduct by the LESSOR, its agent or employees. C) By reason of the LESSEE'S failure to perform any provision of this Lease or to comply with any requirement imposed upon him or on the Farm by any duly authorized governmental agency or political subdivision; provided that the LESSEE shall not be responsible to comply with any requirements necessitating structural or permanent improvements or changes to the Farm. D) Because of the LESSEE'S failure or inability to pay as they become due any obligations incurred by it in the agricultural or other operations conducted by LESSEE on the premises. Subject to Paragraph 10.2, should the LESSEE employ independent contractors to perform any work on the property, or to conduct its fanning operations, the LESSEE shall supervise the work performed by such contractors and assure the LESSOR that each contractor maintains in full force and effect, at contractor's sole cost and expense, insurance coverage's commensurate with those outlined in Article XI, above. 12.2 The terms of this provision shall be binding upon the LESSEE and shall survive and extend beyond the expiration or termination date of this Lease. XIII ARBITRATION 13.1 In the event that LESSEE and LESSOR are unable to agree on any point relating to this Lease, the area of disagreement shall be determined by arbitration. The LESSOR and LESSEE shall jointly appoint one arbitrator; provided, if the LESSOR and LESSEE are unable to agree on the arbitrator 6 then three (3) disinterested persons shall be appointed: one of them shall be chosen by the LESSOR, one by the LESSEE and a third to be chosen by the first two. Their decision as to the question presented to them shall be final and binding upon all parties hereto. The parties hereto shall appoint their designated arbitrator within 15 days following written notice from either party to the other that arbitrators need to be appointed. Thereafter the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the first two within 15 days of their appointments. The arbitrators' decision shall be rendered within 30 days of their appointment. The decision of the arbitrators shall be deemed a final decision and either party may present the arbitrators' decision to the District court in Weld County with a request that the decision be made a Court Ordered Judgment. The terms of this provision shall survive and extend beyond the expiration date of this Lease. XIV OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT DURING LEASE TERM 14.1 LESSEE acknowledges that at the time signing this lease the LESSOR has leased portions of the Farm for oil and gas exploration and/or production. LESSEE shall release acreage needed for oil and gas development upon request from the LESSOR without delay. LESSEE shall have no right to claim, demand or receive any income of any kind or nature from any oil and gas, minerals or wind revenues. Any acres hereafter removed from farm production for oil and gas, minerals or wind production shall reduce the total acres described in this lease. XV TERMINATION 15.1 Unless sooner terminated pursuant to this Article, this Lease shall terminate as provided at Paragraph II, 2.1. 15.2 This Lease may be terminated by either party upon delivery of written notice of intent to terminate. Said notice must be delivered by certified mail to the other party at their last known address on or before December 31 of the current Lease Year and will become effective on the following April 1,S`. 15.3 This Lease shall terminate and be of no force and effect on the date of receipt of written notice of termination, in the event that LESSEE shall fail to pay the rent or otherwise default with regard to any obligation under this Lease, provided in the event of a monetary default, LESSEE shall have a period of seven (7) days to come into compliance and in the event of any other type of default, LESSEE shall have a period of thirty (30) days to come into compliance. In the event of termination for failure to pay rent when due or any other default hereunder and failure to cure during the above stated cure periods, LESSEE grants unto LESSOR immediate possession of all of the property described on "Exhibit A" and to all crops upon said property for purposes of the care of and harvesting of all crops; marketing the crops, with the right to thereafter apply the net proceeds thereof against rents due LESSOR. Any amounts remaining after deduction of these expenses shall be the property of the LESSEE. 7 15.4 This Lease will terminate automatically on the 31st day of MARCH, 2023, without further notice, either oral or written, from either party and will not be renewed unless renewed in writing and signed by the parties hereto. XVI DEFAULT 16. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a default and breach of this Lease by LESSEE: (a) LESSEE failing to pay the rent herein reserved when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of seven (7) calendar days following notice from LESSOR to LESSEE. (b) LESSEE failing to make any other payments required to be made by LESSEE when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of seven (7) calendar days following notice from LESSOR to LESSEE. (c) LESSEE failing to perform or keep any of the other terms, covenants and conditions herein contained for which it is responsible, and such failure continuing and not being cured for a period of thirty (30) calendar days after notice from LESSOR, or if such default is a default which cannot be cured within a 30 calendar day period, then LESSEE 's failing to commence to correct the same within said 30 calendar day period and thereafter failing to prosecute the same to completion with reasonable diligence. (d) LESSEE abandoning the Premises. (e) LESSEE being adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent or filing in any court a petition for bankruptcy or for reorganization or for the adoption of an arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act (as now or in the future amended) or the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy against LESSEE (unless said involuntary bankruptcy is terminated within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of said filing), or LESSEE filing in any court for the appointment of a receiver or trustee of all or a portion of LESSEE's property or there being appointed a receiver or trustee for all or a portion of LESSEE 's property, unless said receiver or trustee is terminated within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of said appointment. (f) LESSEE making any general assignment or general arrangement of its property for the benefit of its creditors. XVII REMEDIES 8 17. Remedies. In the event of an occurrence of default as set forth above, LESSOR shall have the right to: (a) Terminate this Lease and end the term hereof by giving to LESSEE written notice of such termination, in which event LESSOR shall be entitled to recover from LESSEE at the time of such termination the present value of the excess, if any, of the amount of rent reserved in this Lease for the then balance of the term hereof over the then reasonable rental value of the Premises for the same period. The present value shall be determined by discounting all future excess rent amounts at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum. It is understood and agreed that the "reasonable rental value" shall be the amount of rental which LESSOR can obtain as rent for the remaining balance of the initial term or renewal term, whichever is applicable; or (b) Without resuming possession of the Premises or terminating this Lease, to sue monthly for and recover all rents, other required payments due under this Lease, and other sums including damages and legal fees at any time and from time to time accruing hereunder; or (c) Re-enter and take possession of the Premises or any part thereof and repossess the same as of LESSOR 's former estate and expel LESSEE and those claiming through or under LESSEE and remove the effects of both or either (forcibly, if necessary) without being deemed guilty in any manner of trespass and without prejudice to any remedies for rent delinquencies or proceeding Lease defaults, in which event LESSOR may from time to time without terminating this Lease re -let the Premises or any part thereof for such term or terms and at such rental or rentals and upon such other terms and conditions as LESSOR may deem advisable, with the right to make alterations and repairs to the Premises, and such re-entry or taking of possession of the Premises by LESSOR shall not be construed as an election on LESSOR's part to terminate this Lease unless a written notice of termination be given to LESSEE or unless the termination thereof be decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event of LESSOR's election to proceed under this subparagraph (c), then such repossession shall not relieve LESSEE of its obligation and liability under this Lease, all of which shall survive such repossession, and LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR as current liquidated damages the basic rental and additional rental and other sums hereinabove provided which would be payable hereunder if such repossession had not occurred, less the net proceeds (if any) of any releasing of the Premises after deducting all of LESSOR's expenses in connection with such releasing, including but without limitation all repossession costs, brokerage commissions, legal expenses, attorneys' fees, expenses of employees, alteration costs and expenses of preparation for such releasing. LESSEE shall pay such current damages to LESSOR on the days on which the basic rent would have been payable hereunder if possession had not been retaken, and LESSOR shall be entitled to receive the same from Tenant on each such day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, LESSOR AND LESSEE HAVE SET THEIR HANDS ON THE DATES HEREINAFTER STATED. LESSOR: FOSSETT COLUMBINE, LLC 9 By: _ Its: Date: LESSEE: RICHARD ROBERTSON Date: zei% EXHIBIT "A" TO AGRICULTURAL FARM LEASE February, 2018 See attached survey and depiction of Farm area. 11 Laurie Kuntz PO Box 175 Hudson, CO 80642 February 26, 2018 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 0 Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Cureton Midstream Front Range Gas Plant Dear Commissioners: Being a native of Keenesburg I have had the opportunity to get to know Cureton Midstream, their employees, and their plan for the Front Range Gas Plant. I have inquired about the economic and environmental impact of the facility being proposed. Cureton has done their research and ensured that the environmental impact will be nil and have assured residents that their efforts are to protect the environment, water tables, wildlife, etc. that are in the area. The facility will create jobs and additional tax revenue for the area. There are several oil and gas facilities in the area and the only complaint residents have made is the look. My understanding is that Cureton also has a landscaping plan that will allow the facility to be hidden and more appealing. I truly believe that Cureton and its employees care about the residents concerns and the area to which they are building. They also believe in supporting our community and businesses by staying and shopping here (eating here). They have joined the Southeast Weld County Chamber of Commerce and the Keenesburg Chamber of Commerce to continue to show their support to the community. I would vote to approve the proposed facility site. Thank you z-. aurie Kuntz Resident of Hudson (now), Keenesburg Native Weld County Sch February 26, 2018 BRIM. ACHIEVE. SVCCEEU 3J Greg A. ltabenhorst, Ed.D. Superintendent 99 West Broadway PO Box 269 Keenesburg, CO 80643 Dear Weld County Board of County Commissioners: Phone: 303-536-2000 Fax: 303.536-2.010 www.re3j. corn (5) I am pleased to write this letter of recommendation for Cureton Midstream based on my experience in working with them since the Fall of 2017. Specifically, I have had several professional interactions with Jim Foster and Daniel Seaver. Last Fall, the district and Cureton were working toward a right of way easement on one of the district's properties. While the easement was not completed, Cureton was responsive to all of the district's requests and followed through on all of their commitments in the process. Based on this experience, I am confident that our Board of Education would continue working with them on other potential joint projects in the future. Daniel and Jim have also had discussions with me regarding support for our community and the school district in particular. They have shown an interest in our Education Foundation, and have inquired more than once about potential ways of contributing financially. Additionally, they have shown an eagerness to participate in our Career Fair at Weld Central High School and have offered volunteer support if needed. I believe Cureton Midstream is genuine in their interest and investment in our community. I am sorry that previous commitments prevented me from providing this information first hand to the Board of County Commissioners, but I would be happy to provide any follow up information that may be needed. Sincerely, Greg A. Rabenhorst, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools / (94 sail EAtt__ e A_MI/ to dOP 1A ;A AstaiAltatAma; . , 4 l 1 tstallid: II ILa 1 AS i L . A 40 1 5 % - 0 6 . 1 k A ' f). .0 r ( I I Inign" I if L \:j- A .! 4 it Al (1,4 .A 11 al & r/4- % I 1r/ vgj , SANAS 1 v if i.1 6 .LI. ;Ail 1.1116 lAs 1 . P 1: I IMMO . - . - r, W i 1 CIA- . fAA b alit witima, 1 ait 6„„A 6.,,,,k ......., 0 e alga 4 : 61101111111Kii id A .: . 4 anal MI Pla I I I COM Wrinane- aa ft ao lall.1 Je,ct,&1-f/nh4A. , i 0oaalt kis. `AA�_ a NAPIII_aeg In 1 1 issampare e Jdut c4 )22C: -T • ti e.. f Angela Prokop 26902 CR 20 Keenesburg, CO 80643 February 27, 2018 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Cureton Midstream Front Range Gas Plant Dear Commissioners: I have had the opportunity to meet many of the employees of Cureton Midstream, in the field as well as in the office. Everyone that I have had the pleasure of meeting have been very friendly and open to discussing the facility and plans. It is my understanding that the facility site is proposed to be placed near my home. In speaking with Cureton Midstream about the site, It was mentioned about the plans to include complete landscaping to lessen the view of the facility. In addition the pipe line runs past my home, of which the employees have been very respectful while working in the area. The plans are to build in the area and generate revenue for our community. In my opinion, it is by far a great addition and should be approved to build the site for Cureton Midstream. Aria. Aar Ange a Prokop Keenesburg Resident near the proposed site 1 MEMORANDUM TO Sean Conway, District 3 Commissioner and County Commissioners - Mike Freeman, Julie Cozad, Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Steve Moreno FROM: Residents of Southeast Weld County DATE: February 2018 SUBJECT: USR 17-0065 We are requesting that you deny granting Cureton Front Range, LLC USR 17-0065 application at your February 28, 2018 hearing. The first words in your mission statement are "To protect and enhance the quality of life for County residents" and as residents, we are asking you to uphold that mission statement. Below are some of the reasons we are seeking that you deny this application and ask the applicant to seek out another site as recommended at the hearing on February 6, 2018, with the Motion: Forward Case USR17-0065 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. (1) As stated on the county website, Weld County has prospered as there are "thousands of acers of prime agricultural land" and Weld County is the lead in many areas of agriculture in our state. As residents, we also understand the economic impact that Oil & Gas has brought to our county, and we are not opposed to the mining and cultivation of that resource. Harvesting of these mineral rights has already taken place under this parcel of land. What we are opposed to is the proposed use of agricultural land for the commercial and industrial purposes of a processing site. As commissioners, we know you understand the responsibility of all to be good stewards of our land. Towns, cities, and the county have all set aside areas for industrial and commercial use. There are non-residential areas that are east of Keenesburg, west of the proposed site, and north of the proposed site that would not interfere with this residential agriculture area. Land is available, but Cureton has chosen not to pursue those options. (2) Safety is a major concern of residents. After Cureton failed to provide their "Safety Protection & Control Plan" as requested by residents in public meetings, residents contacted the surrounding fire districts themselves. Keenesburg responded that this area is out of their district, and should there be a major plant failure, they would not respond. Greeley, if called in, would only come within % mile of the facility — and there are several homes within that %-mile radius. Only recently, after much advanced training, was Greeley able to decrease the restricted "within one - mile" of a plant failure. The Hudson Fire District covers this parcel, but they have yet to respond to questions from the residents of this area. We are sure that the gas company in Frederick did not expect an explosion in Frederick, but that explosion killed a husband and left a mother who is so injured, she cannot work and support her family. Several years ago, the Roggen plant explosion left two men with physical damage. The recent gas explosion in northern Weld County left one man dead. This is only a very small sample of accidents in Weld County. Yes, accidents occur, but the chance of human life being endangered decreases when there are less residents in the area. As a cryogenic facility, there will be a great deal of wastewater, which again, increases truck traffic to take it away. When residents asked about the contamination of ground water at two of e the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, ULvctt.,Y7/Caf Printed Name Signed Name ai'+31 CDvan get Address (- AS CS b the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, 3\/ btetf P Printed Name Sign -1q-31 COlAnt R4.9 t Kcencsbw Address y f � the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole," This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, TL-Rrsm LET rr Printed Name Signed Name Sv:. � )j P\J "iI Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, c&;ccft\ ?-)pv—k- Printed Name ea kc 4Tit _ Signed Name Address 3 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, A4j'cI 1/43-i Printed Name is -O26 a IS Signed Name " % Address Heenes , C buryo 140‘1/3J the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of currstr uc.liurr lr affic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, ) I 1 I L1b jd l -,L i,j, T3Sch--- Luc? 15; Printed Name Signed Name ) Address ,.., cNES i3v;ZG , • \z • f, the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that Intersection. Nut unly will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, t6r rc,,, )/ocNn Printed Name Signed Name LeCa ta_a,-_/ ,Siea;;, 2Y Ash 57- Mvcts°r Address )/ fi, Ge/4,aeleS/oc.en 4-4 `i (10 kick -/ 9 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that Intersection. Not only will there be uime months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did -- we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, e . I i 1I l \ kj e Printed Name ' Signed Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will riot be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of c.uiisti uction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Printed Name Signed Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that Intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but dlsu Welt will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, c I;/ 11(/- IU.I L\ y\:}1-{ l Printed Name Signed Name Address /WC )jr_er (1e -1r -1/1\11/41(11i( C:A(fir; (1 f- `',' tc_i_� two_ (e C. 4 II the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that Intersection. Not only will little be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, )(C-._ ' V-t•('i1k. Printed Name Signed Name'• Address ' J �tl )c '�' ti' 1' A �_� f' � 1 �� l' r_(lr ,i).LActe.ic1/4/) e -O )62 ir � � 1. the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, [ iiit(' w.,e 4c'`' Printed Name / `7 Sinned Name Address ce. t;17 ejc. / kP(', ithcg, CO the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction lydffiL, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, 49( Printed Name Thp, Signed Name Address '2501 (IL K'c'n16 j (o ?2t}13 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families VI an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, TY-4/'if 4aLJ Printed Name M Waft' Signed Name Address OIL C Tq CD t8 f`l`i the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, ?(& 4c4Jou Printed Name Signed Name Address /0a,„ qe,„I ce_18 the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, se' (Li oC Sow 1 3 taar+- „____ 7-- .asr, NFifq A 5,,,‘ Printed Name Signed Name Address the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 - 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did - we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Printed Name a',a,'1 - Signed Name Address 01-cQ SJ-/ e sled wept, 4ilediaTM goaaj (3) Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did - we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Printed Name °Korn. (1)0:-Nma c250.3 uoct Is Signed Name Address �er1°.s(731,.) C.C, bq 3 (3) Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 - 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did - we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, n a j\ ?Ck7&\C)t Printed Name 30 Address CA 1g (3) Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 - 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did - we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Li) Printed Name Signed Name 2Sc35 Cam. 15 (ceec $6r9 & 1_it Address (3) Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, )4fr;tL Printed Name Signed Name 00,7Ct ‘rX�'.' ddress .*(3‘ the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not onty wilt there tae nine rrruntlr5 of Lc) nstractton traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, Printed Name Address ,2yyg5 we r I � Ka_citcesbur-5,_ Co the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but. also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, \tp rinted Name � i i �-,I�� ion L Cr �) (I I 4--; Sired Name Address Vey 4I,c t/G� the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location: we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, skk r, a�,�11 C �� 29 (133' CC -Je tc4 W Printed Name Signed g ed Name Address 6" b 9 -� the public meetings, a very unsatisfactory response was provided by Cureton of "we don't think there will be any". There is no guarantee that they can make that there will not be a ground water contamination issue. Since the paving of CR 18, the amount of truck traffic has increased tremendously. There is a small rise on CR 18 just east of the intersection of County Roads 18 and 51. As residents of this area, we can testify that truck traffic does not obey the posted speed limit on Road 18. Fully loaded semis moving to the west will not be able to stop in time if there is traffic turning north at that intersection. Not only will there be nine months of construction traffic, but also there will be trucks going to and from the facility every day when it is opened. Cureton was asked by the residents to explore alternative routes for the truck traffic and their response was "there are not any alternatives". What about using the frontage road established for such purposes, going down CR 53 to CR 20 and down to the site. What about the dirt two lane track that goes all the way to WCR 49 just north of the proposed site? We believe that Cureton has not done their due diligence in looking at alternative routes. (3) The residents in this area, who are long time and life residents, choose their property sites because they wanted to grow their families in an agricultural setting. This plant will not only be an eyesore to the surrounding neighbors, but there are other factors such as lighting, noise, and increased traffic. Although Cureton believes that have created a physical site mitigation plan, the reality of planting fully mature trees and having them live is minimal. In addition, the latest plan showed most of the landscaping to the west and south, which does not help the north and east neighbors. Cureton has maintained that they have no "plans for expansion". However, as residents of this area, we have seen a very small oil polishing facility at CR 49 and 30 grow tremendously over the past 24 — 36 months, and it looks like a small city when you drive by. Additionally, the Landcaster plant on CR 22 has had rapid expansion to the point that it too resembles a small city. There have been several other facilities that have "sprung" up over the past 24 months all along CR 49, and our dark, agricultural land is now polluted with light that does resemble small cities. A parcel of land this size lends itself to expansion in the future. Given the expansion of other facilities in our area, it is unbelievable that Cureton claims they want the extra acreage to provide a "buffer". As residents, we ask that you remember one of your duties as a commissioner in that "you must consider not only those factors related to an individual parcel of land, but also how the use of the land affects the surrounding area and the community as a whole." This plant, in this location, does not value the residents of southeast Weld County. The way of life that we have chosen as residents will be compromised beyond repair. As board members, you have combined years of residency in this county of more than 200 years. We are sure you chose your residence for the same reasons we did — we want to raise our family generations in an agricultural community, not a commercial or industrial area. There are just under 4,000 square miles in Weld County, which leaves plenty of room for this facility in another location; we therefore ask that you deny this request. Respectfully submitted by, r/ l/(; !YI e Printed Name Signed Name Address Weld County Scho s .• a -31 9EUEYE. ACHIEVE. SUCCEED February 26, 2018 Greg A. Rabenhorst Ed.p. Superintendent 99 West Broadway PO Box 269 Keenesburg; CO 80643 Dear Weld County Board of County Commissioners: phone: 303-536-2000 Fax: 303-536-2010 www.re3j cant I am pleased to write this letter of recommendation for Cureton Midstream based on my experience in working with them since the Fall of 2017. Specifically, I have had several professional interactions with Jim Foster and Daniel Seaver. Last Fall, the district and Cureton were working toward a right of way easement on one of the district's properties. While the easement was not completed, Cureton was responsive to all of the district's requests and followed through on all of their commitments in the process. Based on this experience, I am confident that our Board of Education would continue working with them on other potential joint projects in the future. Daniel and Jim have also had discussions with me regarding support for our community and the school district in particular. They have shown an interest in our Education Foundation, and have inquired more than once about potential ways of contributing financially. Additionally, they have shown an eagerness to participate in our Career Fair at Weld Central High School and have offered volunteer support if needed. I believe Cureton Midstream is genuine in their interest and investment in our community. I am sorry that previous commitments prevented me from providing this information first hand to the Board of County Commissioners, but I would be happy to provide any follow up information that may be needed. Sincerely, Greg . Rabenhorst, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools KFP Keller Farm Property LLC 14802 West 44th Avenue Golden, CO 80403 (303) 279-6611 February 26, 2018 Weld County Commissioners 1150 O ST. Greeley, CO 80631 Sent via email to, for forwarding to Commissioners: kfordnwetdeov.com Re: Cureton Midstream USR hearing on February 28, 2018 Dear Weld County Commissioners, I am writing this letter to you today in support of the Use by Special Review for the Cureton Midstream Front Range Gas Plant in the southeastern part of the County near the town of Keenesburg. This plant will process natural gas and will move the processed gas to market through existing interstate natural gas pipelines, many of which serve Colorado and Wyoming customers warming our homes, fueling our stoves and providing clean energy to our region. According to representatives of Cureton Midstream, there is a need for this additional facility in our area to meet the demands. As manager of property over which the gas lines for this plant will be located, I have attended 2 community meetings. I have selected teams to work with me to take various properties through zoning and permitting in 8 states for the mining industry, a related type of natural resources industry. I was very impressed by the Cureton Midstream team members who I met through this process. In fact the first person who I met was Charlie Beecherl, the President of Cureton Midstream when he was greeting attendees at the community meeting. I wish that every President of companies requesting rezonings in our communities would attend the community meetings. That shows a true commitment by the company to the community. Several additional team members also attended these meetings to answer questions. They were all well prepared, well versed in their areas of expertise including plant management and safety and, they listened to the comments of the community. In fact they even adjusted their plans in response to the community member's comments when possible. During negotiations regarding the pipeline easement, I found the representatives of the company to be very professional and experienced. They, too, listened to comments and resolved them as we moved through the process. Cureton has utmost respect for the people with whom they work with. After all, some of them will be working at the proposed plant. Cureton does what they say that they are going to do and have followed through with their word. In my opinion, Cureton is committed to being a good partner in Weld County and to be a good steward of the environment and community. I ask you to vote in support of Cureton's proposal and to approve construction of the Gas Plant. Thank you for the work that you do in Weld County. Sincerely, . Richardson Director of Strategy and Sustainable Development Keller Farm Property and Keller Family Limited Partnership C: Charlie Beecherl via email: Charlie.beecherl@curetonmidstream.com Angela Prokop 26902 CR 20 Keenesburg, CO 80643 February 27, 2018 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Cureton Midstream Front Range Gas Plant Dear Commissioners: I have had the opportunity to meet many of the employees of Cureton Midstream, in the field as well as in the office. Everyone that I have had the pleasure of meeting have been very friendly and open to discussing the facility and plans. It is my understanding that the facility site is proposed to be placed near my home. In speaking with Cureton Midstream about the site, It was mentioned about the plans to include complete landscaping to lessen the view of the facility. In addition the pipe line runs past my home, of which the employees have been very respectful while working in the area. The plans are to build in the area and generate revenue for our community. In my opinion, it is by far a great addition and should be approved to build the site for Cureton Midstream. 4 i44 Ange a Prokop Keenesburg Resident near the proposed site Board of County Commissioners Weld County Colorado February 14, 2018 Re: USR17-0065 Richard & Heidi Robertson, c/o Cureton Midstream We own the property at 8947 CR 51 which is adjacent to the north of the proposed cryogenic gas processing plant. We have attended three public meetings and several meetings at our property held by Cureton Midstream. The information that was presented by them was more than adequate and addressed all the questions and concerns that we have about this facility. We found them to be very courteous and informative. They asked for any suggestions that we had to making it a better facility. We are impressed with their concerns with the safety of their employees as well as the surrounding community. We believe that the design of the facility will be sufficient to not be a great burden on this agricultural area. The berms that will be strategically placed will help block most everyone's view. Also, there will be mature trees planted on the berms to assist with restricting the view of the facility. Any noise caused by the equipment should be minimal with today's technology being used to make the equipment. The night lights will be located as to not cause a nuisance to the community since most of the houses are at least V2 mile away. They have talked with the fire department at Hudson and have received a favorable response from them. We believe that Cureton Midstream is totally commited in their efforts to be an asset to this area. We have received enough information from Cureton Midstream to support them with this project. We believe that they will be beneficial to the area by bringing employment opportunities for approximately 18 to 20 full time employees. Ivan & Betty Hayward 8947 CR 51 Keenesburg CO 80643 Lloyd Land Farms Lloyd Land, Owner and Manager Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 To Whom It May Concern, I, Lloyd Land, have an airport and extensive farming operation in Weld County, just South of WCR 16 on WCR 51. My dealings with various personnel from Cureton Midstream have been, and continue to be, extremely courteous and professional. After reviewing the proposed Cureton project, it is found to be very compatible with our surroundings as well as the other oil and gas operations in the area which, in my opinion, are all first class. The economic and beneficial impacts of this Cureton project will be: The creation of various full-time jobs in our area will surely benefit and strengthen our local economy both directly and indirectly as past projects have clearly done in Weld County. This will, in other words, aid Weld County's continuing effort to create jobs and bolster infrastructure for progress and prosperity now and into the future. Weld County is the leader in oil and gas production in the State. The oil and gas operators continue to need additional processing capacity and pipeline facilities to handle current and future production to maintain this leadership position. This need has and will continue to always have safety, waste management and the environment first -in -mind by the various operators. In my knowledge of the engineering standards and dedication exhibited by Cureton, they will be operating the proposed facility and pipeline infrastructure with these same considerations always at the forefront. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 898- 8496. Thank you and sincerely, Laurie Kuntz PD Box 175 Hudson, CO 80642 February 26, 2018 Weld County Board of Commissioners 1150 O Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Cureton Midstream Front Range Gas Plant Dear Commissioners: Being a native of Keenesburg I have had the opportunity to get to know Cureton Midstream, their employees, and their plan for the Front Range Gas Plant. I have inquired about the economic and environmental impact of the facility being proposed. Cureton has done their research and ensured that the environmental impact will be nil and have assured residents that their efforts are to protect the environment, water tables, wildlife, etc. that are in the area. The facility will create jobs and additional tax revenue for the area. There are several oil and gas facilities in the area and the only complaint residents have made is the look. My understanding is that Cureton also has a landscaping plan that will allow the facility to be hidden and more appealing. I truly believe that Cureton and its employees care about the residents concerns and the area to which they are building. They also believe in supporting our community and businesses by staying and shopping here (eating here). They have joined the Southeast Weld County Chamber of Commerce and the Keenesburg Chamber of Commerce to continue to show their support to the community. I would vote to approve the proposed facility site. Thank you urie Kuntz Resident of Hudson (now), Keenesburg Native February 25, 2018 BOCC 1150 O St. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR Case 17-0065 My wife and I live within a half mile of the proposed Cureton Gas Plant on CR 18 and 51. My concern about this project was our property value decreasing or the inability to sell our home. I inherited property on the Canada/Minnesota border several years ago and it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the property while living so far away. My wife and I have been planning to move to Minnesota to be closer, we were just waiting for her to complete her college courses and obtain her teaching license. Had we not been planning to move, I would not have had any concerns about the Cureton project. Cureton reached out to us to discuss our concerns. We agreed to meet with Charlie and Dale who presented us with an offer to buy our property. They explained that they understood our reservations about property value and that they could easily utilize our property in the business. Their offer was fair and within a few days and minor negotiations we were able to make a deal that benefitted both parties. In my opinion, Cureton has been exceptional in demonstrating concern for their community. They have hosted several meetings with the public and have tried to take our feedback into consideration. I have seen that they try to work with residents toward resolutions which is more than any other oil and gas company has done in our area. I am in support of the Cureton project. Best Regards, 700it qeTrialta Tom Herzmann 303-956-0258 therzmann@sbcglobal.net February 24, 2018 BOCC 1150 O St. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR Case 17-0065 My husband and I live within a half mile of the proposed Cureton Gas Plant on CR 18 and 51. Initially we were opposed to the project for three main reasons: salability of our home, safety, and road conditions. We are not opposed to the oil and gas industry. We fuel our cars and heat our home with propane. My husband works in the industry. We understand the opportunity for oil and gas in Weld County, so I am writing this letter to discuss the integrity Cureton has demonstrated regarding this project. First Cureton reached out to the residents within a one mile radius of their proposed site. Having worked in the industry for many years, I know this attempt to communicate was not required. Cureton also hosted at least three meetings where they provided the opportunity for neighbors to communicate their concerns. They made attempts to mitigate potential noise, light, traffic, esthetic, safety, and contamination issues and tried to take our feedback into consideration. While we appreciated the opportunity to voice our opinions, my husband and I maintained our position of not wanting to live near such a plant for the reasons I listed above. We were also very concerned for our neighbors to the south who were within a tenth of a mile from the proposed site. Cureton reached out to us personally to discuss our individual concerns and find solutions. We met with them and I was braced for the worst. That meeting gave me a new respect for Cureton and a new hope for the oil and gas industry as a whole. Charlie presented us with an offer to buy our home explaining that they found an opportunity to alleviate our problems with the project AND use our home responsibly for their project. They explained that they were able to utilize our neighbor's property as well which really softened my angst toward them. We were grateful that they heard and understood what the project meant for us. We were also impressed that they found a creative way to solve the problems for two neighbors who would have been greatly impacted by this project. Not with a bribe, but with a win -win solution. We were able to obtain an appraisal and with only a few emails back and forth to negotiate the contract we came to an amicable deal. Clearly this is not a solution for every neighbor and Cureton is not in the business of buying property they cannot use, but I do know that Cureton has made attempts to work with other neighbors in finding acceptable solutions to their individual concerns. The greatest source of contention from the surrounding residents was why this location? During our meeting Charlie and Dale explained why this particular location is so important to them and we had a better understanding of where they are coming from. We appreciated their honesty. We have lived at this location for ten years. We have NEVER been approached by an oil and gas company in an attempt to hear our concerns let alone problem solve. Other oil and gas companies have destroyed our roads, ran over our chickens, and almost run me off the road many times. We have dealt with the noise and light pollution from new wells springing up around us for years with not so much as a nod in our direction. Our friends and neighbors complain of oil and gas companies leaving their gates open, leaving trash on their property, and killing wildlife on land that does not belong to them. In my experience the industry has been intrusive, irresponsible, destructive, wasteful, and greedy. It is my hope that Cureton's example will raise the bar in the industry. We all know the oil and gas potential in Weld County. We also know that Weld County is a rich agricultural environment. It is time for companies to work with residents rather than infiltrate established communities with little thought of the destruction it causes to those who live there. I do not think it is possible to meet every residential need, however at least in our case Cureton has proven that with a little bit of creative problem solving residents and businesses can meet each other half way. Charlie, Nick, and Dale, have earned my respect and I wish Cureton the best of luck on their project. Sincerely, pamie vg(444* Jamie Herzmann 9561 CR 51 Keenesburg, CO 80643 jamiedahn@hotmail.com Hello