The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20173888.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR17-0043 - CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY, C/O SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC. Tyler Exhibit Page # Submitted By Description (Cont'd from 2017-3887) CO. 1 Applicant Big Binder submitted December 27, 2017 2-19 0 Clarification pts/Intent to meet COAs and DSs 20-27 A Access Permit 28-34 B USR Map Set 35 C1 Cactus Hill Screening Waiver 36 C2 PRPA Letter for COA 092517 37 C3 PRPA Letter for COA 122017 38 C4 Severance Email re Landscaping 39-48 C5 Plant Palate 49-50 C6 3D Renderings of Proposed Landscaping 51 D Cactus Hill Letter 52 E Haul Route 53-54 F Schematic Road Improvements 55-98 G Traffic Impact Study 99-110 H1 Drainage Report part 1 111-220 H2 Drainage Report part 2 221-234 I Water Quality Feature 235-236 J Severance Ready Mix Diminution 237 K1 PV REA Ready, Willing and Able Letter 238 K2 PV REA No Conflict Letter 239-248 M Grading Permit Application 249-251 N Air Quality Permit Process (Cont'd to 2017-4313) 2017-3888 Simon Contractors USR1 7-0043 Asphalt and Ready Mix Concrete Plants WCR 80.5 & SH 257 Information for January 10, 2018 Hearing Compiled by: Tetra Tech 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 Tetra Tech Job No. 133-01756-17001 December 27, 2017 h l TETRA TECH EXHIBIT 2 use - Duo L3 December 27, 2017 Simon Contractors Weld County Use by Special Review, USRI7-0043 The information contained within this notebook i II ustrates how Simon Contractors wi II meet conditions of Approval and Development Standards as proposed through Use by Special Review, USR17-0043. In addition,. it is the intent of the supporting materials and statements contained within to illustrate how Simon has integrated many of the comments and input received via the following sources: • Surrounding Property Owners in emai Is and exhibits presented at the hearings • The September 19, 2017 Planning commission hearing • The Board of county commissioners' hearings on October 25th and November 6th and 8th • The July 10th and October 30th Surrounding Property Owners' Open Houses • A list of questions to be answered at the January 10, 2018 hearing provided by the Board of county commissioners at the November 8th hearing An outcome of this public participation process can be witnessed by the additional provisions incorporated into the facility design and operations plans to be discussed in this document. This information is provided prior to the January 10, 2018 hearing to allow the Board of county commissioners and staff adequate time to review. Additional Points of Clarification During the Board of county commissioner's hearing on November 8, 2017, there were additional points of clarification that the Board indicated they would l i ke to see addressed at the January 10, 2018 hearing. These points are not specifically related to a Weld County code provision, condition of Approval or a Development Standard. Therefore,. these have been separated from discussion of the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval to follow and will be discussed immediately below. Provide a contact at Simon if there is a concern. Response: Simon will establish a blog. The purpose of the blog is to communicate facility updates and events to Simon's Severance neighbors. The blog will allow neighbors to submit any questions they may have for a timely response by the Simon team. Access to the blog will be granted by proximity to the Simon Severance location and by request. What can be said about concerns regarding property value retention? Response: An appraiser has been retained to study this question from a professional perspective. A summary letter is provided in Exhibit J. A► final report will be provided prior to, or at the January 10, 2018 hearing. Why was this site selected and why were the particular criteria utilized? Response: Several criteria are used when entering a new market. Market saturation is carefully analyzed prior to making a commitment to investigate entering a new market. Asphalt and Ready Mix Concrete are fairly perishable products. An optimum delivery radius is 10 miles from the production site to the job site. Therefore, careful site selection in relationship to the marketplace Wage is important. Exhibit R is a graphic illustration of the resulting Site Selection process for this particular market. Once Simon Contractor's determined the northern Fort Collins/Windsor/North Central Weld County region was a market worth pursuing from a business perspective, the following additional criteria were uti I i zed i n the site selection process: • Approximately 5 miles from 1-25 is desirable • One mile north and south of State Highway 14 • 20 acre minimum lot size • on land that was zoned to support the intended use • Not in wetlands or in floodplains ood pl a i ns • Not on Prime Farmground • Signalized highway intersections • Direct access onto a State Highway • Limited utilization of County roads • Not in a platted residential subdivision Parcels in industrial parks on State Highways that do not take construction trucks through communities meeting the defined parameters listed above were not available. How much water is used to wash aggregates? Response: Very little water is consumed on site. Water consumption is primarily used for batching concrete and moisture addition for asphalt production. During the asphalt production process, some excess moisture and fine matter is collected in a sump and recycled back into the asphalt production process. Conditions of Approval & Development Standards Each Condition of Approval or Development Standard will be l i sted followed by a description of how it shall be met and adhered to by Simon Contractors. In many instances, materials to substantiate the statement have been provided in the tabbed section following this document. Each support material is referenced by number and you may find the materials behind the corresponding tab. Conditions of Approval The following Conditions of Approval are those which Simon Contractors will be responsible to meet prior to being able to record the USR Plat. 1A: The applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works with an application for an Access Permit for the number of accesses approved by the Board of County Commissioners and place the Access Permit Number on the USR Map. Response: A Temporary Access Permit has been approved (API7-00290) for three access points. The applicant provided an application for a permanent Access Permit on September 0, 2019 to the Mage Department of Public Works. A revised Access Permit application indicating the access surface has been included with this package as Exhibit A. As with the majority of land use applications, the Department of Public Works will issue approval of the Access Permit application after review of the application materials and upon approval of the USR Application. 1B: The applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan to the Department of Planning Services, for review and approval. Any lighting poles and lamps shall comply with Section 23-3-360.F., which stats in part, that, "any lighting shall be designed, located and operated in such a manner as to meet the following standards: sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent properties." Response: The Site Plan with lighting and lighting standards was provided to the Department of Planning Services on November 3, 2017 for approval. There are 10 on -structure lights which have been designed to light the work surface immediately below. There is one (1) light pole which will only be used during night operations and is located at the office to illuminate the area surrounding the office including the parking area for safety. All lights are directed to the space below and are not directed to off -site properties. There are 4 lights at the entry gates to illuminate the entrances as well as the signs. A copy of the Site Plan is included containing the Lighting Plan as Sheet 4 of Exhibit B. #1A: The applicant shall submit an updated Landscape/Screening Plan to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The equipment parking area, the employee parking area and areas utilized for outdoor storage shall be screened from adjacent properties and public rights -of -way. Response: Since mid -October, the applicant has been sharing the proposed Landscape and Screening Plan with the Town of Severance and the Department of Planning Services. The Town of Severance has provided comments which have been incorporated into the Landscaping and Screening Plan. See Sheets 5 - ? of Exhibit B for the Landscaping and Screening Plan. Exhibit C contains the landscaping plant palate which is a narrative of the plant materials selected along with photographs. You will also find a letter from the property owner adjacent to and south and north indicating they do not have concerns with the activities and have not requested screening. Comments from surrounding property owners have been incorporated into the Landscape and Screening Plan i n the fol I owi ng ways: • Letters dated September 25, 2017 and December 20, 2017 are included in Exhibit C from Platte River Power Authority indicating the proposed improvements do not impact the Authority's abi I i ty to service the existing transmission I i ne. • Landscape materials that are drought and disease resistant have been selected. Plant material sizes have been selected by a Landscape Architect that will adapt well upon transpl ant. • A hardy vine that is also a pollinator is proposed for the fencing along Weld County Road 80.5. • The berm running parallel to State Highway 257 is existing. This berm is approximately 15' tall, is undulating and has been planted with drought tolerant grasses. The proposed landscaping plan has been augmented with additional plant material. A 3D rendering of the proposed landscaped berm is included in Exhibit C. • The outside storage and parking areas have been combined. The parking area that was located 280' to the east has been absorbed into the equipment storage area reducing the operations footpri nt. 31 Page • An additional berm has been added to the eastern property boundary. This berm is 8 - 10' tall along Weld County Road 80.5 and runs north to south along the eastern facility boundary. This berm will screen the office,fueling area and shop from Weld County Road 80.5 right-of-way as well as from the closest property owner to the east. The photo below was taken on the property under consideration for the USR to the property to the east. An existing berm or stockpile of agricultural material is in place on the property to the east. A 3D rendering of the proposed landscaped berm is included in Exhibit C. 1 D: The applicant shall submit a parking plan showing a minimum of 35 parking spaces for employees, including site personnel and truck drivers. Additional spaces shall be shown for the on -site equipment and for vendors who may visit the site. Response: Forty Parking spaces for employees and vendors is illustrated on Sheet 2 in Exhibit B. There is an area designated for truck and equipment parking south of the office area. This is also illustrated on Sheet 2 in Exhibit B. 1A: The applicant shall submit evidence from Larimer County Canal Company that the canal will accept overland flows of water from the property into the canal. Evidence shall be submitted, in writing, on company letterhead, to the Department of Planning Services. Response: We are requesting that this Condition of Approval be amended as follows: The applicant shall submit evidence that downslope property owner will accept all storm water and drainage (overland) flows from the USR property onto property owned by the downslope property owner. We are requesting this change to the Condition of Approval since the Water Supply & Storage Company has refused to accept any water from the USR site, even refusing to accept the historical overland flows from the USR site. The water will be delivered to the downslope property by 41 Page pipeline(s) under the Larimer County Canal so no overland water from the USR property will enter the Canal. A letter from the property owner accepting the drainage is attached as Exhibit D. IF: An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for off -site improvements at this location. Road maintenance including, but not limited to, dust control, damage repair, specified haul routes and future traffic triggers for improvements will be included. Response: Simon Contractors understands the Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement will be entered into after the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Simon Contractors is ready to commence design, including the geotechnical site survey, land survey and engineering design immediately following the hearing. It is anticipated that 4 - 6 months are needed to initiate the design phase and receive approval through the CDOT and Weld County review and approval process. Therefore, Simon Contractors requests that the construction of improvements be allowed to occur during the construction season of 2018. A haul route map, as proposed with the original application materials has been prepared and is included as Exhibit E. It is more safe and cost-efficient to utilize the haul routes as proposed. Local deliveries will utilize local roads when necessary for local delivery. A schematic design of the anticipated road improvements for both State Highway 257 and Weld County Road 80.5 are also included i n Exhibit F. During the November 8, 2017 hearing, the Board of County Commissioners asked for clarification regarding the following topics related to traffic and road improvements: • Traffic stacking on WCR 80.5 and SH 257 and Improvements to the SH 257 Access o Response: Proposed improvements i I I ustrated i n Exhi bit F include auxi I i ary I anes on SH 257 and WCR 80.5 to accommodate additional traffic movements as follows. • Auxiliary lanes include turn lanes from SH 257 onto WCR 80.5 in both directions to allow for turning trucks and residents to safely exit the high speed travel way. • Auxiliary lanes to allow a right turn from WCR 80.5 onto SH 257 is also proposed to allow traffic to make a right turn without waiting for a left turning vehicle and to accelerate up to highway speed and merge safely. • An auxiliary storage lane on the south side of WCR 80.5 to allow trucks to pull off the road and wait, if necessary, and allow other eastbound traffic to pass safely. Normal plant operations will not require trucks to be stored on the County Road. • Haul Routes cannot be Weld County Roads 19/21 and 78/80, unless there is a local delivery. o Response: Simon Contractors acknowledges this routing as it conforms to their traffic study and application materials. Unless there is a local delivery necessitating use of these roads, it is more safe and cost efficient to use State Highways for transportation routes. • Include turning radius on site o Exhibit T illustrates the on -site turning radius as well as the turning radius for trucks turning into the site from WCR 80.5. 51 Page • Damage to WCR 80.5 o The Improvements Agreement will include off -site improvement including WCR 80.5. Simon Contractors also contacted Weld County Public Works and offered to grade the road. Simon is watering the road to reduce dust. Simon noticed damage to the road when the temporary facility was getting started and fixed these potholes. • The existing width of WCR 80.5 is a concern o The existing width of WCR 80.5 is less than 30' wide. The existing right-of-way for WCR 80.5 is 60'. It is proposed that through this land use application, the width of the road will be increased to accommodate the typical Weld County Rural Local Paved Road section. The total proposed width includes two travel lanes, a storage lane, and a 2' shoulder on each side. The total proposed width is 40'. Additional right-of-way is needed to expand the road to existing Rural Local Paved Road status and the additional lanes proposed. • The traffic study submitted with the application requires further validation o The traffic engineer compared the traffic count originally prepared to the data provided by a surrounding property owner. The traffic count volumes were found to be similar. The apparent discrepancy is due to the difference between an all - day count (citizen performed) and a peak -time count which is standard practice. The peak -time count, when up -scaled, essentially matches the all -day count. A memo is included in Exhibit G. o For the State Highway portion of the study, the engineer's data shows that only a south -bound deceleration lane is warranted. However, Simon Contractors is providing additional deceleration and acceleration lanes above and beyond the warrants to help minimize concerns raised by surrounding property owners. • Construction traffic vs. normal facility - generated traffic o During site construction, there may be more traffic coming onto the site. This is to be expected over a limited period of time. It is anticipated that construction traffic will occur once the APEN for the Ready Mix Plant has been received. It is anticipated this will occur in the Spring - Summer, 2018. It is not anticipated that noticeable traffic will occur due to construction of the plant. o Road construction traffic is also anticipated when improvements are made to WCR 80.5 and SH 257. 1G: A. final Drainage Report and Certification of compliance stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. Response: A final Drainage Report and Certification of compliance will be provided to the Department of Planning Services prior to recording the plat. A draft final drainage report was provided with the USR application. The drainage report has been since updated to include the design features discussed below and is included in Exhibit H. In total, the proposed storm water improvements exceed the requirements of Weld County Code and have been developed to mitigate the concerns that were raised at the previous hearings. Many of the concerns regarding runoff are addressed by the secondary containment structures designed in accordance with Federal pollution control guidelines. Rainfall and runoff are only expected to contact areas of the site with no reasonable risk of contamination, including aggregate 51Page stockpiles and other working areas. The runoff is not expected to have contact with any perceived toxic contaminants. The water quality features, including detention ponds, have been designed above what is required by the Weld County Code to mitigate perceived concerns. In order to mitigate concerns, the following measures have been designed into the facility plans: • The runoff is not toxic and contaminants will not be in the runoff. • Storm water runoff will flow onsite into two detention ponds, where the water will be trapped and tested to comply with the State -issued discharge permit. Storm water runoff will flow as illustrated on Sheet 2 of Exhibit B. o The detention ponds are estimated to trap and contain up to the 300 -year runoff, which has an estimated probability of occurrence of 0.33%. For comparison, the 100 -year runoff (standard practice per Weld County Code) has an estimated probably of occurrence of 1.0%. The storm water detention ponds are designed to accommodate rainfall in excess of the Weld County Code requirements. • In addition to providing storm water conveyance capabilities in excess of the Code, it is proposed to provide a compacted clay liner consistent with CAFO regulations. The purpose of the liner is to reduce the likelihood of contamination leaching into the soil and groundwater. The design parameters for the lined pond are presented in Exhibit I. • After testing results showing compliance with the permit limits, runoff will be released into siphons to convey flow under the Larimer County Canal. Water will then be released onto the property owner to the south and maintain the natural flow patterns that existed prior to canal construction. o It is important to note that site discharge above the minimum requirements will be detained on site and subsequently conveyed under the canal. o A letter from the landowner accepting the flow is presented in Exhibit D. • An opinion letter regarding the storm water runoff is presented in Exhibit Q. • An opinion letter from the Department of Water Resources confirming the compliance with State water law is presented in Exhibit Q. Also refer to the narrative for Development Standard 30. 1H: The applicant shall submit evidence from Poudre Valley REA that the proposed improvements will not impact their ability to service the existing electric line adjacent to Weld County Road 80.5. Written evidence shall be submitted on company letterhead, to the Department of Planning Services. Response: An " Intent to Service" and " No Conflict" letters from Poudre Valley REA are included in Exhibit K. Tetra Tech has been in contact with Poudre Valley REA regarding the project. Poudre Valley REA has provided a verbal statement indicating the project does not conflict with the service located north of Weld County Road 80.5. There are power pole that will need to be relocated, however, this will be included in the Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement budget and schedule. 1A: The applicant shall submit evidence from COOT that the concerns and issues in the referral response dated September 14, 2017, have been addressed to their satisfaction. Written evidence shall be submitted on company letterhead, to the Department of Planning Services. Response: Tetra Tech has been in contact with COOT. COOT has indicated that the proposed improvements on State Highway 257 are satisfactory. Final designs are to be submitted to COOT for approval. 7/Page 1J: The map shall be amended to delineate 18 items. Response: The USR Map set submitted with the application has been modified per this particular Condition of Approval as well as other items discussed previously i n this letter. See Exhibit B. 2: Upon Completion of items listed in Condition of Approval #1 above, the applicant shall submit one (1) paper copy or one (1) electronic copy of the map for prel i mi nary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services..... Response: Upon approval of the Conditions of Approval I isted i n #1 above, Tetra Tech wi II submit an electronic copy of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. See response to Condition of Approval 1J above. 1: In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance #2012-3, approved April 20, 2012, should the map not be recorded within the required 120 days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution, a $50.00 recording conti nuance charge shall be added for each additional three month period. Response: Upon approval of the Conditions of Approval I isted in #1 above, Tetra Tech wi II submit an electronic copy of the map for prel i mi nary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. It is not the intent to utilize this extension service, however we do appreciate that it exists. 2: The Department of Planning Services respectfully requests a digital copy of this USR as appropriate. Response: Upon approval of the Conditions of Approval listed in #1 above, Tetra Tech will submit a digital copy of the USR Map to Weld County as requested. 5A: If more than one (1) acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required. Response: Simon Contractors acknowledges this condition. A Weld County Grading Permit was applied for and approved for the temporary faci I ity. A Weld County Grading Permit will be applied for the final site pending approval of the USR. Exhibit M contains the Grading Permit for the temporary facility. 6B: The approved access and tracking control shall be constructed prior to on -site construction. Response: The internal circulation will be paved which will serve as the tracking control. The timing of the improvements will be part of the Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement. 6A: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy, An On -site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County 0WTS. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County OWTS Regul ati ons. Response: Simon Contractors is aware of this requirement and shall comply. 6B: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,. As applicable, the applicant shall submit evidence of an Underground I nj ecti an Control (U IC) Cl ass V I nj ecti on Well permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for any large -capacity septic system (a septic system with the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day). Alternatively, the appl icant can provide evidence from the EPA that they are not subject to the EPA Class V requirements. Response: Simon Contractors is aware of this requirement and shall comply. 8'JPage 7A: Prior to Operation: Accepted construction drawings and construction of the off -site roadway improvements are required prior to operation. Off -site improvements include asphalt paving of CR 80.5 from Highway 257 to 50 feet east of the easternmost access to the f aci I i ty. Response: A schematic design of the anticipated road improvements for both State Highway 257 and Weld County Road 80.5 is also included in Exhibit F. Simon Contractors acknowledges this Condition of Approval. The timing of the improvements will be part of the Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement. 7A: Prior to Operation: The applicant shall develop an Emergency Action and Safety Plan with the Office of Emergency Management and the Fire District. The plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the facility operator, the Fire District and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management. Submit evidence of acceptance to the Department of Panning Services. Response: A draft plan was submitted with the application materials. Upon approval of the USR, this plan will be circulated with the Weld County Office of Emergency Management and the Windsor/Severance Fire and Rescue for review and approval. 7O: The applicant shall submit a Decommissioning Plan to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The Decommissioning Plan shall provide a detailed plan with time frames or milestones after termination of operations for restoring the property to its condition which existing prior to commencement of operations. Response: A Decommissioning Plan is as follows: Plant removal time: 3 months Removal of raw material: 1 month Equipment removal time: 1 month Redistribution of topsoil: 1 month Revegetati on of site: 1 week Remove accesses and revegetati on of accesses: 1 week 8: The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property, until the Use by Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early release agreement. Response: The applicant understands this Condition. Development Standards The following Development Standards are those which Simon Contractors will be responsible to comply with for the duration of the permit. 1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15 [17]-0043, is for Mineral Resource Development Facilities including Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants, materials processing (crushing and screening) material stockpiles, an office, a shop, and outdoor truck and employee parking in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, submitted to the Development Standards stated hereon. Response: Simon Contractors acknowledges the responsibility associated with compliance of the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. 9JPage 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code. Response: Simon Contractors acknowledges the responsibility associated with compliance of the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. 1. The normal hours of operation are 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, for the site office and is unrestricted in the case of public or private emergency or to make necessary repairs to equipment. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 2. The hours of operation for Simon Constructors shall be the following: Response: Simon respectfully requests that this Development Standard be amended as follows: a. Hours of Operation for Asphalt: i. The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday. ii. The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. iii. Load -out from storage silos will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. iv. When the plant is operating at night,it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties, or CDOT, or private companies for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations," when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the customer jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt, night operations could occur seven days per week. When Simon Constructors [Contractors] becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is, for how long it will be occurring, and where the materials are being delivered. b. Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete: v. The Ready M. i x Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday. vi. The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. vii. The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day. viii .Ready Mix trucks will generally operate during plan operations, but may return to the plant after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked. ix. When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties, CDOT, or private companies for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations," when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the customer purchasing the concrete, night operations could occur seven days per week. When Simon Constructors [Contractors] becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is, for how long it will be occurring, and where the materials are being delivered. 101 Page c. Hours of operation for Aggregate and Recycling x. Aggregate recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday. xi. Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn to dusk or 6:30 am to 6:00 pm during the winter); actual operating hours will vary dependent on weather and business levels. 5. The number of on -site employees for Simon Constructors [Contractors] shall be 35 full-time employees and 17 truck drivers, as stated by the applicant. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 3. The parking area on the site shall be maintained. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 4. All signs shall adhere to Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 2 and Appendices 23-C, O, E of the Weld County Code. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 5. The landscaping/screening on the site shall be maintained. Response: Refer to response to Condition of Approval #1C above. 6. The property owner or operator shall provide written evidence of an approved Emergency Action and Safety Plan on or before March 15 of any given year signed by representatives for the Fire District and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management to the Department of Planning Services. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. Upon approval of the USR, the applicant will work with Weld County Office of Emergency Management as well as the Windsor - Severance Fire and Rescue to finalize the draft plan submitted as part of the USR Application. 7. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Section 30-20-100.5, CRS) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. S. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Section 30-20-100.5, CRS. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 9. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive particle emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1, of the Code. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. AJ I waste materials will be managed to prevent nuisance conditions and in accordance with the fugitive dust mitigation plan addressed in Development Standard 13. 11 I Page 13. Fugitive dust should attempt to be confined on the property. Uses on the property should comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commissioner's Air Quality Regulations. Response: Simon acknowledges its responsibility to its employees and neighbors regarding this Development Standard. Simon Contractors submitted a dust abatement plan with the USR application. Per Development Standard 14, the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requires a Construction Permit to be issued before construction of the permanent plant can commence. CDPHE-issued permits explicitly prohibit off -property transport of visible emissions from processing activities and from haul roads. CDPHE will be permitting and monitoring Total Suspended Particulates (TSP), which includes all particulates, including PM 2.5 and specifically PM10 at the site. Cement manufacturing is not part of the Ready Mix Concrete process. There will be no cement production on this site. Mitigation measures at this site include the following: • Watering as necessary of sand, aggregate, and recycled material storage areas • Watering during loading of materials in sand, aggregate, and recycled material storage areas • Watering of recycled materials prior to crushing and screening operations • Washing of vehicle tires as needed prior to site departure to prevent track out to public roadways • Use of pre -washed aggregate and sand when practical • Adoption of procedures to prevent spillage of materials on roadways, such as covered trucks • Use of paved haul roads on the project site • Vacuum sweeping and watering of paved haul roads Limitation of vehicle speeds on the site to 10 miles per hour or less Construction of pavement on Weld County Road 80.5 to 50' beyond the eastern site entrance • 14. The applicant shall submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) and Emissions Permit Application and obtain a permit from the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, as applicable. Response: Simon acknowledges its responsibility to its employees and neighbors regarding this Development Standard. Simon will file an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN) and application for a Construction Permit. The CDPHE follows a rigorous process which requires two submittals from the applicant and thorough review by the department before issuing approval for construction. Further documentation regarding this air quality permitting process and demonstration that ambient air quality standards will be met can be found in Exhibit N. 12 I Page 15. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Light Industrial Zone District, as delineated in Section 25-12-103, CRS. Response: Simon Contractors designed the site with noise mitigation and have initiated several additional noise mitigation measures after I i steni ng to comments including the fol I owi ng: • Noise reducing back-up alarms • Remove generator once line power is installed • Install baffles on pneumatic cylinders located on the slat conveyor and the silo • Ready -mix plant will be enclosed • Corn bale baffles around recycling operations on at least 2 sides, 3 if necessary Engaged a third party noise consultant to visit the site to take a noise reading. Results can be found in Exhibit P. Simon Contractors has also made a commitment to retain an independent consultant to ensure the site maintains compliance with C.R.S. noise standards. A noise map of the facility will be developed not only for the Department of Environmental Quality but also for OSHA compliance once the faci I ity i s ful I y operational. 16. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of 40 CFR, Part 112 shall be available on site. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) is in place for this temporary plant. The SPCC travels with the plant. To provide greater assurances to comments received, Simon Contractors prepared a SPCC specific to the facility (see Exhibit 5). The purpose of this plan is to prevent discharges of oil and liquid petroleum to surface water, including storm water runoff. Additionally, this plan provides a framework to address accidental spills, including removal of all contaminated soil and water. The SPCC establishes Best Management Practices for preventing, controlling and managing spills should they occur. See additional comment for Condition of Approval 1 G regarding the Drainage Plan and Development Standard 17 regarding secondary containment. 10. Secondary containment shall be constructed around tanks to provide containment for the largest single tank and sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation. Secondary containment shall be sufficiently impervious to contain any spilled or released material. Secondary containment devices shall be inspected at regular intervals and maintained in good condition. All secondary containment will comply with the provisions of the State Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. Current oil and liquid petroleum storage is consistent with State and Federal requirements. 11. Any vehicle or equipment washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 12. Process wastewater (such as floor drain wastes) shall be captured in a watertight vault and hauled off for proper disposal. Records of installation, maintenance, and proper disposal shall be maintained. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 13IPage 20. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be handled in a safe manner in accordance with product labeling. All chemicals must be stored secure, on an impervious surface, and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. All chemicals are handled in a safe manner in accordance with product labeling, safety data sheets are available through an online system. Products are stored in accordance with the manufactures recommendations. 13. Any stained or contaminated soils on the facility shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Any reportable spills will be reported and documented in accordance with all date and federal regulations and records will be kept on site for Weld DPHE review upon request. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. Any contaminated soils are removed from the site, tested and properly treated by a third party contractor. All documentation is stored electronically. Any reportable spills will be reported and documented in accordance with all state and federal regulations and records will be kept onsite and electronically for the EPA and other regulatory agencies to review upon request. 14. In the event the septic systems require a design capacity of 2,000 gal or more of sewage per day, the applicants shall adhere to the requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division's (WQCD) Regulations. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 15. For employees that are on the site for less than two (2) consecutive hours a day or 10 or less customers or visitors/day, portable toilets and bottled water are acceptable. Records of maintenance and proper disposal for portable toilets shall be retained on a quarterly basis and available for review by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld and shall include hand rani titers. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 16. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 17. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld Code, pertaining to On -Site Waste Water Treatment Systems (OWTS). Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 18. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of state and federal agencies and the Weld County Code. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. • The following permits are needed to operate the temporary facility and have been obtained by Simon: a Temporary Access Permit, to be extended a Temporary Use Permit, to be extended a APEN for Mobile Asphalt Plant a Stack Testing of the Portable Plant a Weld County Grading Permit a Statewide Storm water Permit 14 I Page • Simon is obligated to obtain the following permits to operate the permanent facility. These permits are obtained prior to operation and are not obtained prior to issuance of a land use permit. The issuance of the land use permit is often the first step in a long process to o btain all necessary permits to operate a permanent facility. Many agreements and permits listed below are in process simultaneously. The following permits are rigorous to o btain and maintain. o Land Use Permit, Use by Special Review - Weld County a Permanent Access Permit - Weld County a Access Permit for Highway Improvements - State of Colorado a Right of Way Permits - State of Colorado a Weld County Improvements Agreement for Weld County Road 80.5 - Weld County a Right of Way Use Permit - State of Colorado and Weld County, as necessary Building and Electrical Permits - Weld County o Line Service (Power) Permits from Poudre Valley REA a Permission from Platte Valley Power Authority a Service agreement from Xcel Energy a Service agreement from North Weld County Water District APEN for Asphalt Plant - State of Colorado a APEN for Ready Mix Plant - State of Colorado a APEN for Recycling - State of Colorado a Spill Prevention, Controls and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) for Facility - State of Colorado a Storm water Notice of Intent - State of Colorado a Storm water Discharge Authorization Permit - State of Colorado a Construction Storm water Discharge Permit - State of Colorado o Storm water Management Plan for Facility - State of Colorado a Weld County Grading Permit - Weld County a Facility Emergency Operations Plan - Weld County a Fuel storage and tank safety plan - State of Colorado a Trucks are registered with U.S. DOT a Septic Permit or Class V Injection Well for septic systems that service more than 20 people per day - State of Colorado and Weld County 27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for controlling noxious weeds on the site, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles 1 & 2 of the Weld County Code. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 19. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road, including damages and/or off -site tracking. Response: The internal roads will be paved, reducing off -site tracking. Weld County Road 80.5 will be paved as part of the Improvements Agreement. 20. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard and as discussed in Condition of Approval 1F above. lsfPage 30. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard and shall comply with Weld County standards. Prior to the construction of the Larimer County Canal, runoff from this site flowed overland to the south. The proposed storm water improvements will restore the pre -canal historic flow patterns and runoff rates. Proposed storm water improvements include lined detention ponds. The storm water system is designed to detain over the 100 -year developed storm without release so that water quality samples may be collected prior to release. When sampling is completed per discharge permit conditions, the runoff will be released via an inverted siphon to convey flow under the Larimer County Canal. The release rate for up to the 100 -year storm will be limited so that it does not exceed the 5 -year pre -project runoff rate from the site. The proposed detention pond system is designed to comply with SB 15-212 (37-92-602 (8), C.R.S.). Upon approval of the USR, the pond information will be entered into the Colorado Storm water Detention and Infiltration Facility Notification Portal. 21. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of on -site drainage related features. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 22. Sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent properties. Sources of light should not cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in accordance with the map. Neither the direct, nor reflected, light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may be used which may be confused with, or construed as, traffic control devices. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. The lighting plan found on Sheet 4 of Exhibit B i II ustrates the proposed placement of fixtures. 23. Building permits may be required, per Section 29-3-10 of the Code. Currently, the following have been adopted by Weld County: 2012 International Codes, 2000 International Energy Code, and 2014 National Electrical Code. A Building Permit Application must be completed and 2 complete sets of engineered plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer must be submitted for review. A Geotechnical Engineering Report, performed by a CO registered engineer, shall be required or an Open Hole Inspection. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. In addition to other building and electrical permits that may be needed, three silos are proposed for the asphalt plant. These silos are anticipated to be 73' tall. Three silos are proposed for the ready mix plant. These silos are anticipated to be no more than 73' tall. The expected range in diameter for the silos is between 10 and 20'. 24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design and Operation Standards of Chapter 23 of the Code. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 161 Page 35. Necessary personnel from Weld County Planning Services, Public Health/Environment, Public Works 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 COA and DS stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 25. The USR area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or DS, as shown or stated, shall require the approval or an amendment of the Permit by the BCC before such changes from the plans or DS are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the DPS. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 26. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing DS. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing DS may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the BCC. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 27. The Right to Extract Mineral Resources Statement shall be observed and placed on the plat. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 28. The Right to Farm Statement shall be observed and placed on the plat. Response: Simon acknowledges this Development Standard. 171 Page Weld County Public Works Dept. 1.111 11 Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO80632 Phone: (7O)3O4-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 p tic rat_ Name John Pine to Company Simon Contractors Address 61 Clear Creak !arKwaY City Cheyenne State WY Zip 82007 Business Phone 3074-632-7900 faxJohn cell: 307 286 474E rrraillirello aimon contractors. corn Parcel. Location & Sketch The access is on CR 80.5 Nearest Intersection: WCR 80.5 Ri SH 257 Distance from intersection 4001 & 775! ... wY..-• . Parcel Number 0705-16-0-000 -54 Section/Township/Range i -T7 RB7 is there an existing access to the property? YES NO Number of Existing Accesses 4r 2 FarmE17-QQ?90 Road Surface Type &. Construction ,Information Asphalt Gravel X Treated Other Culvert Size Type 'ifs'' MP (Minimum) ifog 1,6 Materials used to construct Access Asphalt . Construction Start Date 4/1/2018 Finish .Date. 10/1/2019 ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION FORM P ro e.rt __ wn (if different than Applicant) Name Cactus Hill Ranch Company Address P.O. Box 691 City VVindsor . _ Phone - - Fax State CO Zip 80550 A-= Existing Access A= Proposed Access N i f 1 wcR 80r5 ia�+Y�R ft 1 2 3 4 25? 1 & : EA} Ag. Li 2 & 3: EA .API7M0 90 WCR Proposed Use o Temporary (Tracking . Pad Required)/ $75 O Single Residential/$75 Small Commercial. or Oil -t as/ 7S o Large Commercial/$1513 o Field (Agriculture .Only):/Exempt Is this access associatedwith a Planning Process? o No M SR. o RE a PUD D o Other. USR17-0043 It L A • l n ustrial/ 150 U Subdivision/$150 flopirecl Attached Documents 4, Traffic Control Plan -Certificate of Insurance - Access Pictures (From the Left, Right, & into the access) By accepting this permit, the undersigned .Applicant, under penalty of perjury, verifies that they have received all pages of the permit application; they have read and understand all of thepermit requirements and provisions set forth on all pages; that they have the. authority to sign for and bind the Applicant, if the Applicant is a corporation or other entity; and that by virtue of their signature the Applicant licant is hound by and agrees to comply with all said permit requirements and provisions, .all Weld County ordinances, and state laws regarding facilities construction. Signature Approval or Denial wriibe issued in minim -um of S days. Revised Date 6/29/10 Printed Name John Pinelb Approved by Date December 18, 2017 Typical Traffic ontro Plan Diagram e :{14 500 FT 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I .I I I I 1 I 1 1 I i I 1 1 I I F t I t I 4 i I 0 O . The above diagramis ical for normal shoulder work applications. Additional signing may be required. 2. Vehicles or construction equipment shall note parked in the travel way and should be moved to the shoulder,. If vehicles or construction equipment are not able to be moved out of the way of traffic, channelizing n lizin g devices are required for day. use only. No night time obstructions are allowed, 3 Additional 'roadwork ahead" sip to be Stalled 500 feet south of intersection on I certificate of Insurance THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UP(Mt YOU THE CERTIFICATE ]HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT AN INSURANCE POLICY AND DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND, OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY TI tE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. POLICY LIMITS ARE NO LESS TITAN THOSE --LISTED, ALTI-IoU H POLICIES MAY INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SUBL1M IT/LIMITS NOT €.!S'T` I BEi_O11, This is to Certify that FSImon Contractors and Subsidiaries RO. Box 209 Cheyenne WY 82003 L NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED Liberty Mutual, INSURANCE is, at the issue date ofthis certificate, irisurcd by the Company under the paticy(ies) listed below. The Insurance afforded by the listed policy(1cs) is stt *cot to all limit Gains, exclusions and Conditions and is aoi altered by any requirement, terra or comdtrieit ot'any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate maybe €ssued, TYPE OF POLICY WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY M OCCURRENCE O CLAIMS MADE E ? DATE CONTINUOUS o EXTENDED O POLICY TERM 4/1/2018 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 21 OWNED NON•t}WNED El HIRED 4/112018 OTHER POLICY NUMBER LIMIT OF LIABILITY 3J i e 1#0'Y i V V o B57 1132.-631,-004090-877 -includes Per Project Aggregate -includes XCI COVEItAoE AFFORDED UNDER WC LAW OF THE FOLLOW!HO STATES: All States eitc ND, 01-1, WA, WY General Aecresntc Produts 1 Completed Opecnttons Azgrc.gatc EMPLOYERS LIABILITY Bodily ireury by ,Accident Bodily Injury By Disease :ansial.,,0QO MOO K nt< Bodily Injury By Disease rcrd 1000$0 ,- I S $2 000 000 Each Oceuittncc 'personal & Adtestising Injury ssQcQ&000.. $2,000,000 Per person !Organization Other Damages to Premises: $100,000 tlthtr Medical Payments: $10,000 Each Accident --Single Limit $2,000,000 BA, And P.B, Contb tcd AS2 631-004090 667 Each Person Each Accident of Commence Each .Accident or Occurrence ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Certificate holder is named as additional insureds, as their interests may apply: with rights of subrogation, Access permit i lithe certificate cspirntlort drttc is ce≥huaus or emended terns, you wine relined ifcoverage is terminated or reduced before the certificate expiration date. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: (NOT APPLICABLE UNLESS A NUMBER OF DAYS IS ENTERED BELOW,) BEFORE THE STATED EXPIRATION DATE THE COMPANY WILL NOT CANCEL OR REDUCE THE INSURANCE AFFORDED UNDER THE ABOVE POLICIES UNTIL AT LEAST 30 DAYS Nana OF SUCH CANCELLATION HAS BEEN MAILED TO: Weld County, Colorado 1111 H Street Greeley, Co 80632 L Geautal,r, . m. inn Weston / 0102 13 Riverside Rd: Riverside Office Park Weston MA 02493-229B 781.,891-8900 OFFICE PHONE This certificate is executed by LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP as respects such insurance us is afforded by those Companies 34805175 3 1A4,57 1 4111-4/1D - S&meo Contractor° - M.i Linea I Donna snititln 3/24/2017 0155t30 t3O Ai CeDt 1 raga Y of 1 t~WI COI 268896 02 11 Libtrty Mutual Insurance Group Courtney Connolly AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 4/28/17 _ DATE ISSUED NM 772 0740 Simon Construction Company Severance Asphalt and Ready -Mix Concrete Plants Access Permit Photos The following photos were taken from the site at the two access points being proposed. Yy ry} ftTaM-•f9fc?Cijrostow .i:P• , • Eastern Access Photos Western Access Photos •%Thrrtk, K sYaltJ'• Yh :CSI' ca • ge s t {rr 7� li 7�w .r•.,... F 0 6 7 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: ORM, Sit - -pILOPI II, RM! ur' MOM S WWI OEI0 *i,I,,4MOLI0• HIM MAO MICA CO150MY, OMMESI CilYC10R M. 1110114.54 InE Sit Inca 0041{PONS WA µO MM PP MICA AMINVEINI UM ROOM 9rµ YNIM:IAt➢VECI CCNI MAN? IKWr4SN000OMI ••E•W I µD COMMIL TATO. MOM ADAM MOU51N0 MAMAO MO N4YMM01 MIRA IIOCOM%(O M anti • ►p1 µ0 MECO* Mali µ0 1Yn1Mtl AMMO M 114 A NMOM IHW110Ao*l4C. &A/C1 .0114 MLY.OIMEMI TIAMMAII IIA'I0.I4IOM • 4MO5WK w 11.4Aµ Mt LIAR I • xs1.0.4OMMIr SW! RAMAT IOUCIMI•]se 4 a 114 S4Daman Dal • IN NAM MlAI OP Vl W1 CST ML MI TOINCIM *40*' 'ii o1 M 1M40AI IAA 1,µ II" (MICE MOt mama tI04114 C4 Of SiSt M PO M11 LW OLNCL 011➢ MY $tLU4A Ir 41PARS TO eCVIEMp4 '4 TIN AMISS OF IMIRAIoI lw Y4• L➢NFTFIC TOM MALI et 0$ ra1(Mie • Ha1t3 LN O.4M'ON 1d Man 154 Simi L*L T.KNs. pIC• AMISH MAW 'MOM 'MUM. .i tME E WOAD ,040r n/MI OIY MIq• MI. Si MAO •0 Mt MA 4•'M tMIU TO Lae M.1* AIM SUM, is LOADOJT snow 410540$ MOS YALU MAD 1004 HMS 004E MilArE TO 014 MA arcs MAW .I SNOT 64 PAM o °DOWNS*? Me IT VAL OCCUA 00410.1AMMAL6MEOAnt04. OTLL COO. WI OR COOT •0414611 SOWAS 40j4C:E WM Con t'LL 44 L010OEEEO 10CC OPEALT04I*O IICY TAN ',Act rH.EEM TE 14W45O ONE MOH AR E4 mecum TO O4 M'.0 10041 WOW CERNDK.a ME MUM OF la M IS OCTg4 AAOVyco R¢ AMA, 404 CADIAMls COuto OCw4 Stan DAYS Ma wn AMA µ1b CMS? MC TM WOWS mac O Amen Tom 440*55 *04 onward 1MEV ear DIAL 114E NELOCOMTY AMMO DAtclOt ID TAT •1•44E4 DOn AIO/T In( A.LNS to MAC! OuITIC4O OMLO.I.0.011 VISON.E ERDALCT 4'O* .OEL:MD R VAL OE OCCATAti µO WEPE'M5 MtEMWSME rµ0 DEL •rtfD 'NEIS O OKMIIA FM 44.01 MA L(ACA it •u4 DART MM CCAIDE i Mµt NLL 04:r OMEMTE MEW µApp. MNGM. n 1.4 IIAYOMaAMMO. AMI OA MI DIN Vold U teMMO 10 CM anni IMAM MOM 10 MEnM it AP 154 W.M. D 64 YIAITI .MIL AM 0015411 µd1 tMM It Multi 0111 Mt 4, OW MM` MA Mt OMls4. s UMMIIOWAIM MO EM'OM Sul Am *Ina TO TM HEART M AI AIM M4lOOW, 10 Si 4O µ01µY0 t .014e Or OtutOlru* AgyMFH MO MEMO YO *00$tSti 4MCY4AD OF{MI644M L AM OCALA MONO•. IMAM. MIMCAI t MI0*IO•II YMM4•0MO atlrtL$M MAHON&Mu O4I(L400 YAM ARYL WI TOMSrilMW 10Wµ MGM AW IUe COPS CIMA Tnl MOM ALOW MIAOW MAIMAIYr YAn OCNITOLMI 04 MAMA MO Mall Oil NINE • 64 HAW 4 Ur ON OY 1MOYI MA WA CORSISuC104t 4W. U SE las• FM AMU. US MD 111ACL OIIM4S At s l Alio Fr544 alALCAi! • tu( AMMO µM OR 1.4 M4 MIL U MATAI40 4. f61. Mr .044E TO Amur* µ1[1L M mum IN D AMODCES he ISO µO1ST O Tr4E 4tto(Mar. C00t • 1.4 tN4OACYNOrtCAt OLM CL MI MI MALT .4$ -Mhto • Iµ4 P400441. DAME* OR dlt MIOS MALI HOME MOM t$OEIra at M AFRLOYED c*EIOMC. AC IPA MO WU. Aµ ON 04 SCAM SMUT ISM Of MY oMgi AIM MOWED P' KMEIOI Aral Ml 544. AL MSC T PAO 4.,E WELD CM T. rC1 0 EM.EMCI 11.4442.01414 TO IW 00M1M1OI O AMINO EAMCA r0 4. LRYO MO ICAO MILL AS 0415140 I. 'FE SCUD VaSTE5 DOOM. Z•11.1 4.40 LACMtcS KT UC!O. HOD ICU S C M 41 MALL U MM MO $4200.40104 FM. 0MOEM A A 5454141E MAT O4CTECTS LOANS- MAME ANO OMOAOYLIIA CAT.WMTtA 11 40 PEALN•M.1 DENIAL Or ALMS MT 4E PEMITE3 AT IIIµ Ill L 114$ 4µ0T SOW! TO PLLUOE TIDY W V Tn SMAICAt. ADAM c*Os t.Q CISMI0l O1 • SAID WASTE M 1,41 SOLD WOWS 010054 PIEI MO FACTS EL al LACrOM )470,001 C•S 17 YAIIE MT4AIMC SPOT M MOW, SIAM MC CAMQ OSA IMµ•P MT COMMfG11M W.Or .1401N4 PMTIDAMIE EMMLOMI AMMO OHM 540004* AOTOT Wt A.tM.E CO.OTOY twl r*a.-r, MALL °PIMA Si aaaOWICI Lyn. MADAM N MIME : O At MLO cowry CODE .S t10TM Will Sam 0 HAM. 1014 DAf4OLC S 04 nun •re ,.M• CA Tnl MOYM, MAO MIRA M. Mt CaoMN AM Oag,!T LAWMEN -IM AMITY DOM? OM .A TM MACAO MALI SWAMI µ Am marl W Wµ06. Mitt A• I Mr MY.) MAIM PIRIM evisomi Tot. Am Ot7M. A 04.f AM IM MI 401.0101 C0NAO AMOK O IIt C0tOMOO O•M1MM10' *AIM VM I. Np~4101MINI A AM CA.t It In fKWn MALL IYIIAS ID 114 MAMA gy14MYl MA• LIV AM.MNJ A Iw( tW1 ACM Ina Mt IMAM M O. WtAl ID W *U. SOAR AA 11644E 4 A Mt •MY5MI0 (01IW NW COW. MILMAIt•54* WHAM MKCO40AMCI wM MI MADAM wOAE64 Of Y FAS OMIITI MM 4I MMM.l MATe uCaOMT C011AFWMI MA, M COMI I MMCTW7 MIAMD 'MAT 10 no.10l C4T.AFYLM' HOP TM .MOIL• µ•E4 IMW µD MACAW MtIgMO ID CMIAN MK411A10.UCA0U1. CaNIMYCMI 404 M WIGEMf., MOEMW, 1OC4Mrs NO MAO O •I LIME° MIMW MWOAN, C4•.ANIMT MOM 4011 Mil AI•LCTIOAt SCAM W1MM,• 5411 MNI•NCO Si MA DAMON AT It 054, C4TM5AMT Mt COMA Mtn M4 M40WSOA Or 1,4 sla4 UNOtaa*➢MOµ0 A .4 01154.0 SIAM Ma 4IW014Mt ,5 M. YMCA 0• tOMYMMI MOM ARM MW. 4VIIAI AL. Inn 01M MD MMNI 000.•pµ N ACC040W.t Aran 1,44 miss NC MO•Alm 0 tl4 M!4* OJA(1n COMM COM14M4 µ011N MM40YO1M PIUTECI W µ1K• ,5 AOLAN AMTCMIM ,MM. M 1100 :*..M MAItIn wl el MIMEO A A MIA?OM Yw r MO mammon 104 AMA ?Maw *ICCPDI w I4lA,M TM 41W11NMC5 µD PAM* 04.05A AA: U 4EIAMED A ALL SO.041AL • MMARCOK 4 iltstl WI? M AMU] W A SAFE AANMEM M ACCO.Oµ[T MOT. F•OWC7 LMEIM MI [4MC&I WIT U SIAM ?ACME 4 µ MPE4Yg4 SIAS*CL µ0M ,YC04DMICE µMT. AWAKlMsal SECO MID, E Mr !MAO A C➢LTMMIED SOLI A. tnt pK,:tr• MALL M 4EMT40 540 OM= O W KT,AM.AE min AWICMLL WtE5 540 YLALA.05 µr REPORTABLE MLA ALL U ROOSTED MD WCLWOTM M KCOOMCE WIM N. I,AII MOO FECES... RE0MATOMS MD SEC01DL VALE UPI 45TE FA 1044 IMAM MAT, UMW! .] n 114E IYMTT Inf stsa M IAS*ECM! A AIM CMNJn OICm Mtt4I A MOME01 MANX 414 M. la AFACMit MIN. A04IE 10f14.10100Mµ11O 11,1 COCIADC 'N emoo? 01 ADAC n1µ M -D 011400 M0.7 SAM MM. COMM MASONS IOCCO1 AMA Mot ]I 0011OPtO1IU 15414*4 4 TM 41I PA LESS 11Tµ IMOIT COMICutM ,RASA OM, A 100 LAU CW TOY1M 0E YO10 1 PEA M. Pa teal TOM rI µ0IOr'MD *WO MI ACCSPTMta 4510/040 YAMIIWMCI 5410 M40R4 WIOMN F0 MA 1µM 14.1 r0 MINL U If TAMED On A➢ STDi., WO NHOµNOM.. F0 5E40O5Y 644 MO CCMT. 0L *IV1N100 AMC .454 ACp UNIADINpt POI TAME MOTS MAIL. U AMMO. MACAW* LCIMQO W into COME. No MM.. CO. FM .01.0 MAMA N •PtSMMMT AOLIA,AR SAM EWA,MA.. U AROMA. 0A 0MNIIMO$MI114, F44b•aa NO 4rtC OHM LOCH IC (Si Tat 4Al1A$'Y Nat UMIFA• woof 4.L ~AMMO HIM M LO LOMn COOK PERIANM 104411 MA ARM 1MMIMENI DIP Do I—Il A IM MMtO. MAT CAM • Woo AI. ARICA►E Utl HMO RtOUtA?WE OA MOrtA1W MYMCU*01W WILD COUNT, 40011 II FM •405451' AMA M MIMTO 4141 Et *1100444.1 IA MAW NO AMMO 04504 IM 1110 AMMO 10MAIM IE MOMS r 540. A Int MO LOMO COO A MS WAY 4 MI PIE MAT IrSAMAIta 10 WITD*1t Mr WAGS• F0µ AAUC *OM MC,MOMOWAOA 014004 4.11 IEACMO A HAM MAIL 4 M MARO O IMMO O AIM: At MSC *0.004 MIA PMOR 4WuN UTYCW IC int MASICis FI NM1 TOW MO MAW N101•TE 404 SAE vat A IMWI.AWCO i1 141.1 1400.116 4NOl$4MOOIR4l.04044MWTEMMKI 04 MIS MOM EEMIED SMIWU M MUMS OF A0.1 Mt St MEMO EO154144.154 MOE0 LWIM. MT Mrµ MCA 410 MOyAEAI IACA4tTM4 IWrIS 0 .Wt MAO kW CARNE• AMC 0 ATEWESE *47.411.1 USE 4 Tnt ADJACENT P*CFE*MS A A :COIOMIce VIM TM Iw Atoms Ng taw 1 NA 4RKTM Lop! mos W TOP Mar Mr MATE A 1W SC .AMC IC 014.4104.1 O N-04 MICAS 0 MAC 0* MATE 5164TH NO COCOE➢ W.413 MY 4 UDC 544. MF 4 C0FMY0 NIH 0* C.(MSTSJIDAS AMC DO/TIM DOMES 0 MK0M REAMTS Mr 4 4E01A*EC H* DICTOI MS IC Of int 04,.0 Cast, CM OJTALIC O ME F0LO./p rAH 4W COPTIC El WELD COW. 2012 W1E4M70NAl COCCI S PO MAI KM CNCED COO. µ0 ALF MTO,M ELICILCAt COOL A 4.1.04: NNW MCATCa W S14 C4IYTCO MD µC701 CaAETE SETS O OMMEISO RAM GO M 754E Y41 S7A4I 0 A CAMEO •t01iOEONICHTECI 40100{151StT 4 WITS,Ttt0 F0 AMW *OOIMMNGI ENOMEt1140 moolf FE*F0ME05F A COOMOO M ASA *,O 1MWEER MALE Y ME9uWED 054 OM AM 55411104 Y 1.4 Mein 0 t440n1AM10A M AL 4A1.40MEM• MS LOA AC AM THE ONO•MOOMIMICAOTAI.MRO O C.MIIE* 11 O SELL WMOLAMt• coot 1 MCEW*I HUMS, MUM 154 AM MAD 0LM*TAMIf 0' MAIM EtN44 NELC W0*S MO MAC ntM In 540 µ4*OMM1t 544*\ N. DIMMED ALMS 410 'HO AC*4n Al µH RIAMME TOIL W CAM 10 FKL4 114 AC° ATE5 CAMEO CM 4 154 AIAOn COMA wan Mt COPTO4. O AWt0YM 540 011.1,0040141 n*16NO f4rtOM*1IL N40 ALT AMI CAW WOO COAT. AI61M10II A 'H$ 4.4 *Y PICA 14.144* IA4 Mt SI MAO TO 140 AAA µ40M 144514 MO MIMEO My Ill 904100040 f1M0.400. MU 4t MACAW MAO COMFY 4OAAIPMO MS41MTW [NEMESIS FM 1.4 Fl/WS O ONLCIMOM ET .4.04.1011 M MOM 04 SIAM MARL 40AOL r.41 4M,4µ 01 µM101LDllEFl1 A TM IW,I SI 154 (MOMS°. M AIO O COM r. COM14E0E4 SUMS MCn CMAN04 II MAI M SAM 4 0MLOMFOLI AMAMI Ain r.CRMt1A0 MYOIWA MAMA AM1 4.L 00 W ML Am 0 04 4MAMA 10 AIMWO Mal II Mt 1M0A4n MOM 04 0.45410* MALI 4 4MOM41511 M* LLY•IOM Wm NI. 0 HA IO440Ap 044/1441./ I1M1A401 HOIDEN WCt Wan Mn 0 1.41 •ona,.0 MLALOMAL*I 410100011 MY 4 SIAM HOE 41YOCAt4Y OF IW Pt OW n 1.4 •544 0 COMFY r.ORI45aM4 A ROM ID MIRK' 54141554 5 ICLACI5 A011 W4O COli Mt M7AE 0 044 yosT *414LMNI MMEML ill 10..“11 KLULA O NI ICI Iln4D TO MC) MO 04tt.4. ANM10Ml NC 1CW AMA 1111A W O 044 COMMIX amine EMANME *41444.5 Mt VDT 514U5C11 IMAM W 154• VW • COMINICAL MMIW OEgp0E Mt [MAIM 10 THE $14114 icons. AO AK 104.,• W casein O 154E MA A (MCA M4Et4p! O Sa04 APONTE MO 'Cl 5404 OEO01t1 50.40 4 UT4M110 ACC00•Q TO • µD4* FLAN 1µU 11-C 10 AU60 HASTE O PM. mitosis *.D CWII 114 LEAD SHIM 'CAW MU* TOR 01 1441 EMMA MO mown Of LSE O IntC1TIM40 Mt PAMELA Emma OF 1.44 SI*l4541W 44U•CI IOM101 ME WO4M*M0 6.40100.401.° 104( COW Ir *10FE40N5 MAO SIC SHARE MW must accootaa 1µt tam! AIWA ASIOCAILO W,. 1445 04ALMS4MA A ASTONS MWAAA 44AAM4l MIS Mt 5,11010 Min O00E*H4CM MD OtOP4TSCA. toc*70W tb*EOE* µp1 4**IAC17 Mi PIOTEC'EO P*OtE*n R041S MO MOM( Owt4 "CIAO 4µ500E0 154E OPFO*!LM1 *DUNK- T.I5 *Mw ALOOAIICE A 154E Lime µHr *04T tO rmoo MAMMAS MEALS Se UMW 204300)O loot SELO COATI CM MAAL 4 PLACED 4 HARE OAMNo nicCOMIDAr Nt"5041 FDA 04 *ELDCC4n 40't TO FAI4 SI•TE*St 4E DIED 1 01 TAIL µ41A n4 6 1 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW- USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY A PART OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16. TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M COUNTY OF WELD. STATE OF COLORADO VICINITY MAP ie HWY III fi. ♦....0 . LL4 I.—. . ,. AI SOILS MAP: 6 • 4 2 l' II SOILS LEGEND: Apr. 21 A :12 ILM _QA.µ t :O 3 PERCc7AT SLOPES 33 KIM LOAM 3 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 64 THEDALUND LOAM I TO3 PERCENT SLOPES Sheet List Table Sheet Sheet Title Number 2 3 5 6 COVER SHEET B TE PLAN DE TAIL SHEET LIGHTING PLAN LANDSCAPING PLAN IAN &WING PLAN LANDSCAPING PLAN '. t I. _1' ti 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COAT COLORADO. DOES HEREBY CONFIRM NC ADOPT THIS USE BY SPECIAL RE VIEW AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS SHOWN AID DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY OF 20 CIWR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST WELDCOUNTY CLERK To THE BOARD DEPUTY OLERK TO THE5ARD DATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: P**Ct. A A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED W THE WEST HALF OF SECTION tt TOWNIy1IP I NORTH RANGE a7 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULAR. 1 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING At TrE WEST QUARTER CORNER Of SAID SECTION IS ANDCONSIOERTND THE WEST LINE OF THE THE SOUTNAESI WART T a Or SAID SEC LION 16 TO SEAR N00'IFFIat WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BERN RELATIVE THERETO THENCE Nit 53'47'1 ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION IS A DISTANCE OF 4000 FEET TO THE PC16'(t O BEaNwNG I HENCE NOD19'16"1 ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HKirIWAY 251. A DISTANCE OF NCO FEET THENCE NI9E53.47.E ALOM5 THE THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF -WAY OF WELD COUNTY ROAD M 1/2 At. DESCRIBED IN BOOK 247 PAGE 147 RECORDED IN THE WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE A DL STANCE OF 212337 FEET THENCE 800'0622W A DISTAI C,E OF 61624 FEET TO A POINT ON 714E Norma V LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 750 PAGE 349. AND REFERENCED IN BOOK I 132 RECD 2074296 RECORDED IN THE WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE BEING 5000 FEE t NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY CANAL. THENCE ALONG SAD NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY TONAL THE FOLLOWING TEN(10)COURSES THENCE N65-04`5SW A DISTANCE OF 414.95 FEES THENCE N73.447w A DISTANCE OF 474,02 FEET HENCE NS5'29'37W A DISTANCE OF 24956 FEEI THENCE Stir 119.7W ADISTANCE OF 13437 FEET THENCE S7T'N700W A DISTANCE OF 196.71 FEET THENCE 51S'36'47W A DISTANCE OF 64.24 FEET. THENCE $647O74'W A DISTANCE OF 161.96 FEET THENCE MS'D4' IOW A USIANCE OF 205.16 FEET THENCE 549' IF NEW A DISTANCE OF 124.06 FEE T THENCE NSO'23DIW AUSTANCE OF 3015 FEET 10 A PONr ON THE EASTERLY EIGHT OF. WAY LINE OF STATE NORWAY 2511[9 OESCIBEO TOM PAGE 455. RECORDED IN THE WELD COUNTY Di ERA AND RECORDER'S OFFICE. THENCE NATO'19 ISE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT -OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 467 Al FEET TO TIE POINT OF BEORNMNG CON TAMNG 2500 ACRES MORE OR LESS AA PARCEL OF LAID LOCATED IN THE NEST HALT OF SECTION la TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL MER CAN. WELD COUNTY COLORADO. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE WEST CHARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16 ANC ©T4IOERINO THE WEST LINE OF THE THE SOUTHWEST OJNRTEH OT SAID SECTION Ia TO BEAR NCO 19 ta'E WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BONG RECLINE THERETO. THENCE N69'53 47E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST OWRTER OF SAID SEC LON TS A DISTANCE OF 2642 II FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 AND THE PONT OF BEGINNING THENCE SO0'0627W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST ()GARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 A MS LANCE a 57e 77 FEET 10 A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OE A PARCEL OF LAND OE SCRIBE O IN BOOK 250 PAGE 349 NC REFERENCED W BOOK 1132, RECS 2074296 RECORDED IN THE WEL D COUNTY CLERK FIND RECORDER'S OFFICE BEING 5000 FEET NORTHERLY OF ANO PARALLEL WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY CANAL THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CANAL THE FOLLOWING THREE I3) COURSES 572'4934W A DISTANCE Or 7T 4 FEET THENCE 5151507W A DISTANCE OF 153.14 FEET THENCE N65'WSSW A DISTANCE OF 255.59 FEET THENCE MO' 0677E. A DISTANCE OF 610 24 FEET to A POINT ON THE THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT CF -WAY OF WELD COUNTY ROAD 80 12 AS DESCRIBED IN BCC( 247 PAGE 142. RECORDED IN THE WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE THENCE 149'53474 ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF.WAY LINE. A OLSTANCE OF 476 74 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TrE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION la THENCE S00'0672W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION T6 A DISTANCE OF 2500 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 6 63$ ACRES MORE OR L L.SS PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION: THE UNDERSIGNED MILTON PROPERTY OWNER DOES HEREBY ACIALL TO THB SI It SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENI PLAN AND TIE UBE BY SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED HIEREON THIS DAY Of 20 COMPANY NAME BY PROPERTY LESSEES CERTIFICATION: THE JNOERSIGNED PROPERTY LECSEFS DO HEREBY AGREE TO THUS SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELO3PMEM STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY OF 20 SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY BY PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION: THIS 16 TO CERTIFY THAT THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING WMMSSON HAS CERTIFIED AM) ODES HEREBY RECOMMEND TO THE BOAROOr COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY. CaORAOO. FOR HEIR CONFIRMATION APPROVAL ANDADOPTION TIES USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON THIS _DAY Of 70 CHAIR WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION I W I - W fry 0.l DESCRIPTION ITUI REDONE REVIEW II N H a- Ce ₹� I— Q> w w YI-J 4ot _ Z� x w (n J Q > w u O �w9a. O UWN Z � CO w � CO r..I•a NO 'A-0':AA I aI By 1 Bar MMtlres ' rcr. J •SV S re P As 'ANC Or ''FNNF. Fa •-•. • 12/22!017 12353' pig Pta r G A 00 ROW BOOK 747 PG In LIGHTED ENTRY SIGN WESTERN MOST ACCESS TO BE RELOCATED HERE ACCESS CGNBTRUCTED AP 1700700 STOP ANO NO RIGHT URN SIGN in ///''' EXISTING ACCESS / TO BE CLOSED A 700 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT NOTE 'HE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT ANO USES`MLL BE LOCA'EC WITHIN THE SECONDARY CGNTNNMENT • D.I_ 'Ml unit TEMPORARY FACILITY ACCESS ROAD NOTE UPON TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY ACCESS USA ONSITE CRQ)LATION WLL REVERT TO PROPOSED CIRCULATION USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY A PART OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH. RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M . COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO - ACCESS ALREADY CONSTURCTED AD 11.80200 - STOP AND NO RIGHT TURN SIGN EXTEND PAVING W BEYOND DRIVEWAY CE OE WCR 80.5 100' EASEMENT REC $1741776 1 TERNA TI YE CC*.0 RE II RAN' POND A OUTLET PIPE LEGEND CAR AIER C Iffr fT 4F Dzoysia NA( EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PIPE - EXISTING ACCESS TO BE CLOSED OE POND B OUTLET PIPE OE EXISTING MA:CR CpNTOURS (S TNT I EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS (I•)NT ) EXISTING SECTION LINE — NOW .OFWAY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT a -a EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD a PROPOSED SEQRI TY FENCE -a- PROPOSED WWDEN PRIVACY FENCE USR BOGNDARY PROPOSED STRUCTURE/ EQUIPMENT MATERIAL STOCKPILES PROPOSED ASPAL T ROAD EXISTING ASPHALT ROAD SCREENING BERM GRAVEL ROAD GRAVEL ROAD (WAN L VEHICLE TRAFFIC pray) DETENTION POND c EXISTING UTILITY POLE ORNNAOE FLOW TRAFFIC ORO-RATION PROPOSED PORTOLET PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE SECTION CORNER MARKER PROPOSED GATE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA 4SIa's6' HAY BALE 111111111111 MITT 111111111111171111U _ EMPLOYEEi VENDOR PARKING (W SPACES TRUCK 6 EQUIPMENT PARKING Elt, TETRA TECH I 6 I 6 3 5 FIRM No 73101MST 61 rho) DHOW BI Or' TiF W. AXI 2 Bar Masuros I ,ncn 4 XS - r _ USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW- USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY A PART OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M , COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO •1A- Y V I V _ N N N -••/- TOP A REINF s A • AA • A ♦ A rt-t0.0-f- la -O' (MAX) ft 1 - TR LINE POSTS CHAIN LINK SECURITY FENCE NOT TO 5Cµ E 70 LINE POSTS C• 1•• 7 • BARS WIRE SUAPORT ARM GROLTNU SECTION VIEW NOT TO SCALE tJ / 1 FLOODLIGHT POLE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE MONUMENT SIGN NOT TO SCALE Ts I Mt EICLOSU ES MALI BE LEVEL MEEK THE SWEET 1 EIQOWS SWILL R TROA 7 TOO S MOLT FROM PAD to TOP EMQOBUIES STALL H CO16TRUCTE04 A r EIHICII (MITOORDETE PAD PAD 9INL E IUGHTtY SLOPE TO EM9AE DRAINAGE IN( BOTTOMOF THE all SHALL 6E t r*BOYS THE PAO 1 R S TRASH DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE NOT TO SCALE witortiom MaheLEO W w a P a—wa••w �•••M• ISIS-- sTIW'CEHt{9N ,sNUA/r II • Steams 0•••• 5— a •••r Orr •nyrl•• Y•• ass •• •w Mar •�r•••• a a•1•••• A•••a e•ne' •So •••r••• IIHAIO••••••• •a• •wrrr. • t•.I.•a:1•••Ltt• Waimea Y Sobel — �1 a• l••• •Area rall 1 arurtae• UM•••Y••••r• Y•• ••••w•• -a • • ••t • •- ISMS,•••••• 1111".•1 bans Ititt I•••HR ow ••F•flea vl •y •r•M• SIN N*S B•••H•PL■ ea • ••• • OS • M • N a W a r • — • any • au a ••ISIS 0 f'• • •••i••F•••• 1•••• Is ••.m, • as ra • a • m • a r • mar oat rams T i• 4• was. • Ia. awls Ia t MM•P••••• a ernes, a .r••'• ' • ••N• • •BHA • ••••_••u • t••M• • ••••v Y 1•01.1•0.8...•••• • b 1••rl••• •••t ••err ... •••r •... ——rrr.I•r•r•e••-- IS. woe Pea THE WELD COUNTY RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT WELD COUNT t' t5 ONE OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE AORI CULT URA: COUNTIES RE TIC UNTED STATES TYPICALLY RANKING IN THE TOP TEN COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY IN TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD THE RURAL AREAS OF WELD COUNTY MAY BE OPEN AND SPACIOUS BUT THEY ARE INTENSIVELY USED OR AGRTIOA TURE PERSONS MOVING INTO A RURAL AREA MUST RECOGMZE ANDACCEPT THERE ARE DRAWBACKS INCLUDING CONFLICTS %MTH LONGSTANDING AORICUL TLRAL PRACTICES AND A LOWER LEVEL OF SERVICES THAN IN TOWN ALONG WITH THE DRAWBACKS COME THE INCENTIVES WF•CH ATTRACT URBAN DWELLERS TO RELOCATE 70 RURAL AREAS OPEN VIEWS S•ACHOUSNE35 W LaIFE, LACTL OF CITY NOISE AND CONGESTION. AND THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE ANO WAY OF LIFE WITHOUT NEIGHBORING FARMS THOSE FEATURES WHICH ATTRACT URBAN DWELLERS 70 RURAL WELO COUNTY WOULD OUCKL Y BE GONE FOREVER *GROUT TURN. USERS OF I HE tAM) SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO CHANGE THEIR LONG.ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES 10 ACCOMMODATE THE INTRUSION'S OF URBAN USERS INTO A RURAL AREA WELL RUN AORICIL1URµ ACTIVITIES WILL GENERATE OFF-STE IMPACTS INCLUDING NOSE FROM TRACTORS ANO EQUIPMENT SLOALMOWNG FARM VEHICLES ON RLRN ROADS DUST FROM ANIMAL PENS FIELD WORT( HARVEST AND GRAVEL ROADS. ODOR FROM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT. MINCE AND MANURE. SMOKE FROM DITCH BUMMNO, FLIES NC MOSQUITOES, HUNTING AEC TRAPPING ACTMTIES, SHOOTING SPORTS LEGAL WINO OF NUISANCE YML0.1FE AFC THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS IN THE FIELDS INCLUDING THE USE OF AERIAL SPRAYING IT IS COMMON PRACTICE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS TO UTILIZE AN ACCUMULATOR OF AGMCUL TURN. MACHINERY NC SUPPLIES TO ASSIST IN THEIR AGRI=TIAAL OPERATIONS A CONCENTRATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AGRICLATLIRAL MATERIALS OFTEN PRODUCES A VISUAL DISPARITY BE TUREEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS OF THE COUNTY SECTION 753 5102. C R.S. PROVIDES THAT AN AGRICLL TURAL OPERATION SHALL NOT BE FOLIC TO BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NLASANCE IF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ALLEGED TO BE A NUISANCE EMPLOYS METHOD OR PRACIICE5 THAT ARE COMMONLY OR REASONABLY ASSOOATED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WATER HAS BEEN. AND CONTINJES TO BE. THE LIFELINE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY IT IS UNREALISTIC TO ASSURE THAT DITCHES AND RESERVOIRS MAY SIMPLY BE MOVED Gut OF THE WAY- OF RESOENRµ DEVELOPMENT WHEN MOVING TO THE COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS MUST REALIZE THEY CANNOT TAKE WATER FROM IRRIGATION DITCHES, LAKES OR OTHER STRUCTURES UNLESS THEY HAVE AN ADJUDICATED RIGHT TO THE WATER WELD COUNTY COVERS A LAND AREA OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR THOUSAND (4 000) SQUARE MILES IN SZE (TWICE THE SIZE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE) WITH MORE THAN THREE T.OUSANDSEVEN HUNDRED (3 700) MILES OF STATE ANDCOU1TY ROADSOUTSIOE OF MUNICIPALITIES THE SHEER MAGNITUDE OF THE AREA TO BE SERVED STRETCHES AVNLABLE RESOURCES LAW EMORCEMENT IS BASED ON RESPONSES TO COMPLAINTS MORE THAN CN PATROLS OF THE COUNTY AM) THE DISTANCES WHICH MUST BE TRAVELED MAY DELAY ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSES. INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AMBULANCE. AND FIRE FIRE PROTECTION IS USUALLY PROVIDED BY VOLUNTEERS WHO MUST LEAVE THEIR JOBS AND FAMILIES TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES COUNTY GRAVEL ROADS. NO MATTER HOW OFTEN THEY ARE BLADED WILL NOT PROVIDE TIE SAME KIND Of SURFACE EXPECTED FROM A PAVED ROAD SNOW REMOVAL PRIORITIES MEAN THAT ROADS FROM SUBDIVISIONS 70 ARTERIALS MAY NOT BE CLEARED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AFTER A MAJOR SNOWSTORM SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS, IN MAN CASES, Writ NOT BE EOUVALENT TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES RURAL DWELLERS MUST BY NECESSITY BE MORE SELFSUFFIOENT THAN URBAN DWELLERS PEOPLE ARE EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT HAZARDS IN THE COUNTY THAN IN AN URBAN OR SLBURSAN SETTING FARM EQUIPMENT ANO OIL FIELD EOUPMENI. PONDS AND IRRIGATION OTOIES. ELECTRICAL POWER FOR PUMPS AND CENTER PIVOT OPERATIONS. HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC. SANOBURS PUNCTURE VINES, TERRITORIAL FARM DOGS ANC LIVESTOCK, AND OPEN BURNING PRESENT REAL THREATS CONTROLLING CHILDREN'S AC MATTES IS IMPORTANT NOI ONLY FOR THEIR SAFETY SLIT ALSO FOR THE PROTECTOR Cf THE FARMERS LIVELPH000 TETRA TECH I ;I! Jr a J l 5 2 A DETAIL SHEET Pq•cl No. 13301 I)p'r a Onp•R IN Mown By. DATA•• By AA) JJA 3 Sir MNSUIOS 1 Mich a A I LIGHTED ENTRY SIGN EXISTING ACCESS. TO BE CLOSED ix - WESTERNMOST ACCESS TO HERE APCESSC0NSTRVCTED AP 1 742290 OE A$PMA 'AMID _ IN 0 SP 100 200 SCALE I' = 100 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT NOTE THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT AND USES Will BE _OCA TED W'I*,N THE SECONDARY CONTMMAENT • 0•••• (um aft TEMPORARY FACILITY ACCESS ROAD NOTE UPON TtRMINAT'ON OF TEMPORARY ACCESS USE ON811E ORCIA.ADON W4L REVERT TO PROPOSED ORCULAT(0N USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY - ACCESS ALREADY CONS TOM TED AP 1700290 OE _ LEGEND A PART OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M , COUNTY OF WELD. STATE OF COLORADO EMSTINS MA]CRCONEOUR$ (5 INT EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS (I• INT ) EXISTING SECTION LINE FIGNIQF.WAY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT OE EXISTING OVERHEAD LINL ITV EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD Iot�D[—a PROPOSED PROPERTY FENCE • —A— PROPOSED WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE u.SR BOUNDARY VA Cu, e P m CWA S tt PROPOSED STRUCTURE? EQUIPMENT MATERIAL STOOOALES EXISTINGAS'psti ROAD SCREENING BERM GRAVEL ROAD ORA.VEL ROAD (SMALL VEHICLE TRAFFIC ONLY) EXISTING UTILITY POLE DRAINAGE FLOW TRAFFIC ORCULATICN PROPOSED POR1CLEl PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE SECTION CORNER MASER PROPOSED GATE CONCRETE WAWgUT AREA PROPOSED 11ON1 POLE ENTRY SIGN WITH LIGHT PROPOSED ONSTRUCTURE UGHI PROPOSED UGH"( ON GATE POST Ave EXISTINGACCESS TO BE CLOSED Illllllllt nlnlssIIII 11111(j111111111 111 FAUIPMENT PARIONG i TRLEA PAR iNti bit] TETRA TECH 2 a Proton No I 110 I5O.I/m1 WOW SY AJS DOW. $y CFW Q.a.o M AS 4 Be M•a•us•• I •1011 j I X 2 6 B I SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAIL LEGEND WESTERN MOOT ACCESS TO SE RELOCATED HERE ACCESS CONSTRICTED M 1/40780 OE 114) SCARLET TRAIPSE T H O EYSJCALE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY A PART OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO - SEED AREA MOM EWE OF FENCE TO EDGE Or NOM OF WAY N TEE MIA tICIXOR MG" 4 MI *1 t WEDS* BELOM ATE FEI G (n) SCARLET TRUMPET HHONEYSUC*LE O n 91A n Oa n n OE 0 grsi EDOST C MAUR COIRTGIRS 0 NT 1 E)OSTPC MICR CC ITOLRS (1 WT EXsSTNG SEC TON sJNF FRONT OF SAT Lite ERVING EASEMENT ENS EPFG OVERHEAD U TA It V EXISTING OMVEI ROAD PROPERTY FENCE US$ IQMDARY PROPOBEO SIRUCI WE WANTS( ANT S( M MATERJu STOCKME EATS TAG &WAI T M'YTa SCAEEHMG BERM :RAVE_ ROAO GRAVEL ROAD LIMN t KMCLE TRAFFIC ONLY I 'Ca OUSTING UTILITY POLE t=> ORMMOE FLOW e TRAFFIC ORCSAA T ON a PROPOSEDPORtOLET PA(WQSE O TRAIN ENCLOSURE • SECTION WIRER MARKER FVOPOPLEQ OAT, OONCREIE WABHCUI ARIA CWA a PROPOSED VIFES Col FORTH OWN LAN FENCE PROP06ED EVEROREE'a S AWN IFS Ana0 Ct • Rita T5 MULTI -COLOR HIGH ALTITUDE SEED MIX .AMLAVSLAS VALLEY SEEC MUL PC •1 JOA LAS CRESTED t'-tA IGRJLSS 25% SHEEP FESCUE 5% PETIT*. RYE '5% OE'NPCS FESCUE 'OL CANADA f JEGRASI SA WILDFLOVER MA SEEDING NOTES THTB QED mot ORGWB 542 sat AtAt( W1H. AVE RAO( RMPd AL REQUIRESu1TLE TO NO MAINTENANCE NC 5 OOOO I-04 SIFT. SIRS it*TION t115 MIX IS SU TABLE FOR AREAS WHERE ME7MNI IS OFFICLA I Cm tC I OESINAN* SEEDNO RATE ORYLAND 15.70 LIMNS -RE (MEAN A SOIL TEST FOR AN AVERAGE OF SLAT MAIM ES IMEN F RCM SEVERAL LOCATIONS nR0LOMAJT THE SITE BROADCAST eon MISt ORGANIC FERN, TIER Al A NATE OF ISOO ISO PCMRCS PER ACRE CR AN APPROVED EQUAL USESS THE SOIL SAMPLE ROUTES A MORE SA TABLE RATE APPLY AT THE TIME THE SEED TS DRILL ED COIL SEED At THE RATE OF 1S70 LES (Pte • PLRE LIVE SEW) PER ACRE APPLY TWO TOKS or CERTIFED WEED FREE STRAW PER ACRE CAMPED AND TACAIFlED BROADCAST SEED ON AREAS TWAT ARE TOO STEEP OR TOO SMALL TO SE DRILLED AT THE RATE PER MAAJFACC'IpES SPEOFICATOPS IF SEEDS IRON:CAW MDRDWACW WITH A SLURRY OF A000 FIBER APO TAp0C ATA RATE PER MAMSCTLEIE'S(ECOPAMErCATgN' SEED MAY BE SWAG OR FALL csit1ED a IWEEN TIE APFRDANATE DATES OF MARCH 15TH TO MAY 15TH CR AMILJR 15TH AND NENEA10ER 15TW AIFVAAGE %EEC GROWTH Br MOAMND OR APPLICATION Cr A SROACLEAE WEED HERTMCCE LM% A SJ TAB E STAND OF MASS S ES TAB OPED (APPROXIMATELY) YEARS) WORM(AA TORS AFC VAMI TES ARE MALECT TO CMFOE W TROUT NOTICE M IIIIIIII11III1111111I • GENERAL NOTES: SEE SHEET 7 FOR DETAIL 0 W 100 700 SCALE 1•- TOO ' LOCATOR OF AL_ PRCP3SED S-R-EES OA TEE ALAN 0 C/:S OPTUAI ACC W Y BE STE *LASTED to FIT ON THE BERMS N WATER TREES SPAT NTH WATER TRUES FOR THE F MT 7 YEARS OR UNTA ESTAaSED WATER 7-) TREES PER WEER CUEING THE CROWING SEASON MO ONCE EVERT 54 WE£KS N THE OFF SEASON (VC 1 OSERAAARC'0 MEN THERE IS NO SIGN FICANT RAM OR SNOW AlII THE TEMPERA', LIRE TS ABOVE A5 ) RESEED AREAS ON THE N. THAT ARE L MOER THAN V (SAME TER WI" THE APPROPRIATE SEED WA LINTS AN APPROVED STAPO OE GRASS IS ESYABLtW*D ] WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 IE PUT N PLACE BY OWNER W11t ABP TABLE STAND OF GRASS TS ESTWISHED CONTROL WEEDS BY MECHANICAL (MOWANG) OR WIN HLRBIO0E APPLICATIONS DONE N A TIMELY MANNER N ACCORDANCE NTH BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 5 CONTRACTOR TO CALL FOR UTII IIY LOCATES AND FILL ETVE RIFT All UM)ERGROLFW) UIII IT TES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION S N CASE Of DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLANT SOLIDS t NC L INOSCAPE R AN THE PL AN SALt SAJPENACEUt THE PLANT SESEOULE 1 CHANGES IN PLANT MAMMAL, MUST 8E vigil()) NTH. LAFOSCAPE AFCJ<IECT S TREES APO 17RL$S TONTO SE SACHET) SIN .OE Stfl0 WESTERN CEDAR OR REIMODO TYPE MACE. AT TIME CF PLANTIIA° TOCOYSERVE Wahl* TREES APO SHRUBS AIL. NATLRALIZE OVER tit* MC W ENDINTO THE NATIVE GRASSES TO SIAM BEM, sac, BE EDGED NTH MTV HEAVY CAGE RYERMY1STEEL LOGE OR APPRO./EDED-a II LBW S HAVE BEEN OCSEN FOR THORR diOu Ht Tai RANI OHMRACTEiSIICS NO THERR Amor TO NATLRAI& AND OR COLON.* THE STE ONUS WAL PROVIDE WAIVE PASTA' MO FOOD I SVFITC/.ORASSES TORE LEFT t*TRMAIFED IHRQOH. THE FALL MO TAW TER ISONT,C TO PRONOE SE ASOWL INTEREST NO Staff HART TAT PRUE ILOL GIBED BMT D.GRASSE$ (FROM PREVIOUS YEAS) 'N APRIL TO APPAOJUWI TELY I' TALL TO ALLOWECM NOV GROWN 1) JASPER HIES LISTED ON THE PLANT SCHEMA NLL VARY DE$ENEJPC a IOWCE ANO AVAItAllitITV IT IB ADVISABLE TO PUROLASE IARGtR SIZES DUE TO THEIR ST CNVEA (SWARTH RATE TETRA TECH D g Z 8 I RLARI No I)).T111HI FOOT DwgvP BF BI OHw.^ ST CARPAL By CFW AB 5 BP M.F.P.. I ,-u YMEIER CMnCK USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY A PART OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16. TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M . COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO PLANT SCHEDULE --PAN NAME MO BOTANICAL NAME SIZE MATURE HEIGHT MATURE WIDTH OTY _ EVERGREENS, UPRIGHT JUNIPERS. SHRUBS. GRASSES S VINES T0TALs 300 NISTRIMI PINE Pula NIORA S BUS 1640 3046 21 C0.OOREEN JUNIPER AYPPERUS SCOPULORLJM COLOOREEN NIS CON? 15-47' 64. 17 .4x.XY MT JUNIPER JUWPERUSSCOPULGRUM SBtT 7630 6-17 24 MCHITA OI.UE _JJMPER JUWPERUSSCOPULORUM WICHITA SLUE' ■IS CONT 1170- A4' 5 APACH PLUME FALLUOA PARADOXA IS CONT 34 34' 31 STAGHORN SUMAC RHUB TYPHINA 05 CONT 10-25' 161s Al a' COTONEASTER COTCNEASTERLUODUS IS CONT 6-17 610 29 NALL BLUE RASBITBRUSH ERICAMERIA NAUSEOSA SSP NAUSEOSA VAR SPEOOSA 65 COAT 24 24 25 I IEAVY METAL BL UE SNATCH GRASS ;NINON 'MOAT OA HEAVY METAL IS CONI 44 164E 131 SCARLET TRUMPET HONEYIUCJILE LONICERASEMPERVIRES'MAGNIFICA II CONT VINE VINE 10? NO Il) RABBIT\;) BRUSH 111 PEKING - COT ONE AS I ER I' DEEP SHREDDED BARN OR WOO(3 CHIP MULCH TO BE KEPT 2' FROM TRLANK µ !EyRNATE CONIFERG4VPING 1WSTFM EDJALLY SPACE030' STEEL STAKES WITH WHITE TOPS BET FLLIBH W TH GRADE GUY TO MIDPOINT Of TREE• FLAG WIRE WITH IQ' DMAETER WMTE PVC PIPE 4 REMOVE BOTTOM 113 OF WARE BASKEA . SET TREE IN PIT TO PROPER GRADE MO• M PLUMB REMOVE RENAMING WIRE S TWWNE IF PLASTIC OR TREATED BURLAP REMOVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE t BACKFILL IF REGULAR BURLAP. SAOLFILL 213 OF PIT REMOVE TOP I130FBURLAPt COMPLETE BACKFILL UNDISTURBED SOIL (4)STADHIORSI SUMAC (II)SYIITCP ASS- J� DAME HER 7.31 BALL WIDTH NOTE Ills) SWITCI'CRASS STEEL EDGE ITYP I L— (W COL OGREEN E JUMP' PRUNE AS DRECTEDBY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE DD NOT PRUNE OR DAMAGE CENTRAL LEADER WRAP TRUNK FROM GROLAO LEVEL TO SECONDBR NCH WITH <- KRAFT TYPE TREE WRAP SECURE ENDS WITH FLEXIBLE CAPE STANDARD GUYING SYSTEM MN I' LONG HEAVY DUTY TBAR STEEL POST SLAKES WITH WHITE T.POST CAPS AND W TH 1 X GAUGE GAT YAWED STEEL WIRE GUYS SECURED TO TREE WITH CANVAS STRAP ABOVE FIRST BRAN A, WIRE TO BE TAUT BUT NOT OVER. � TKXHT FLAG WIRE WITH WHITE PLASTIC FLAGGING TAPE CONFERS TO HAVE 1 STAKES FOR TREES S *NO LESS. 3 STAKES FOR TREES ABOVE 6 DEOOUOLA TREES TO HAVE 1 STAKES FOR TREES 1-17 CAL AND LESS. 3 STAKESABOVE 7 1 0 CAL ONE ? STAKE ALWAYS IN ORECTION OF "S: PREVAILING WINDS REMOVE STAKES & GUYS AFTER I YEAR OR BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY COUNTY PREPARED BACKFILL MATURE ONE PART SOL AMENDMENT? TWO PAR TS TOPSOIL 3 T11REt PARTSNAIIVE SOL I &IPERRIDBP•ATE AMENDMENT 5 MATERIALS TO BE THOROUGHLY I SET ROOT BALL OF ALL TREES 7' ABOVE GRADE IN BLENDED NON IRRCA TED AREAS MOCK IF BULL cannons PER COUNTY STANDARDS INSTALL A S' HIGH BERM AROUND TREES TO CREATE A WATERING BASIN LEAVE BERM & MULCH IN NO I IRRIOAIEO AREAS TREE PLANTING DETAIL ON SLOPE NTS F (9) C(AO MEEN JUNIPER PALA* DEAD OR DAMAGED BRANDIES PRIOR TO PLANTING IF FORM IS COMPNOWBEO BY PRUNING. REPLACE SHRUB SPACE PLANTS NC SET PLUMB FOR BEST EFFECT MOUND COMPACTED BACKFILL UNDER ROOTBALI OR SET ON UNDSTURBE) SOIL SPLIT BOTTOM 10 OF BALL SPREAD ANO PLANT REMOVE ALL C'ONTAMERS BASKETS. WIRE ETC FROM ROOTBALL • DAME TER 731(5 BALL WIDTH SET SUS PLUMB TOP OF ROOT BALL 10 MATCH FINISH GRACE - DEODKY,JS T ABOVE FIMBH GRADE SHREDDED BARK OR WOOD CHIP MULCH INSIDE SAUCER BUILD AC BASIN AROUND AT IN NONIRRIGATEO AREAS ONLY PREPARED BACXFILL WXTURE • ONE PART SOIL AMENDMENT 2 THREE PARTS NATIVE SOIL 3 SUPERPHOSPHATE AMENDMENT 4 MATERIALS TO BE THOROUDHLY BLENDED SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ON SLOPE N r s • TETRA TECH LANDSCAPING PLAN 6 9 M ♦ • .I r. ♦ ♦ 9 9 9 9 9 > 9 3 IA St AO CIIN MARC ) I ISI OPPOSE PLUME 13) STAG.CRN "AMC 4, MCP OF BERM y y W 4 — STEEL EDGE ITYP (S) *not PL omE > (51 ETAT SCYM SLIMAC TOP Of BERM 4e USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR17-0043 SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS FOR: SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY A PART OF A TRACT C AND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH. RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P M COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO .3, $TAG.C/M SUMAC 131 PEAAC. CO TCAEASTER 1101 BYIIITrwoRA6i W (4I RAM T BRl.9• (5) ROCKY MT - JUMPER I3) PEKING COTOTEABTER - STEEL EDGE ITVP (5)AUSTWAN PINE 9 > (3) RANIT BRUSH IJ) AUSTRIAN 0S42 - ♦I• Ill ItAWCNN SUMAC y y y f5) STAOKIRN 9 9 (S) NOCRY Mt JUMPER (3) St SUMAC I3) AUSTRIM (S) APAQ ELU PME G j - (5) PEIMI COTO*EASTER 4 toP OF BERM 9 9 y v -\c".`Nara AOhURN y W W W •10 n '0 A b SCALE 1'.3n (J)) AUSTRIAN NNE 7 9 13) APALIE PL LIME (1) STAGIARN SUMAC 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 > 9 mai (3) SIM)NPNN SomN. T3) 5t*RHOS* SUMAC y W *Si 11 J1 SWITCYc.RA65 W 4, TOP OF PERM y W MATCHLINE SEE BELOW 0 10 20 40 RULE 1'.30 t1n1CCILOO EEN JUMPER *SIC MORASS W y [-it) TETRA TECH I E t a E I Promo 133011y5.IRR1 Maim By CPR CbcAFe BT A� 7 Sr Lisa* I am Cactus Hill Ranch Co. 39330 State Highway 257 Fort Collins, Co 80524 September 20, 2017 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Co 80631 RE: USR 17-0 043 for Simon Contractors Dear Mr. Ogle, I own the property under consideration for USR17-0043 as well as the property to the north and south of the proposed use (parcels 0705 16 000054 and 0705 16 300002). Weld County Road 80.5 is at a higher elevation than the proposed batch plants and any attempt to screen the property from my land to the north will not be productive. In addition, my property to the south is composed of crop land and screening is being accomplished by the material stockpiles. I do not object to the proposed use and screening to the north and south is not needed. Sincerely, Cactus Hill Ranch Co. Nels Nelson Platte River Power Authority September 25, 2017 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Planning 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Co 80631 RE: USR17-0043 for Simon Contractors Dear Mr. Ogle, Simon Contractors and Tetra Tech have been in close communication with Platte River Power Authority regarding their pending Use by Special Review application. We understand the nature of the application, the future permanent use, the reduction in access points and the site constraints due to our easement. We are providing evidence indicating the proposed improvements do not impact our ability to service and or our use of the existing transmission line that is adjacent to WCR 80.5 east of State Highway 257 in unincorporated Weld County. Feel free to contact me with additional questions. Sincerely/ Mcurk, C we -t , PE System Engineering Manager Platte River Power Authorirty curti5repi pdAGFg 970-420-2999 Platte River Power Authority December 20, 2017 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Planning 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Co 80631 RE; U5R17-0043 for Simon Contractors Dear Mr. Ogle, Simon Contractors and Tetra Tech remain to be in close communication with Platte River Power Authority regarding the pending Use by Special Review Application. We understand the nature of the application, the future permanent use, the reduction in access points, the proposed landscaping, and the site constraints due to our easement. We are providing evidence indicating the proposed improvements do not impact our ability to service and or use the existing transmission line that is adjacent to Weld County Road 80.5 east of State Highway 257 in unincorporated Weld County. Feel free to contact me with additional questions. Sincerely, Mark Curtis, PE System Engineering Manager Platte River Power Authority L_,tirtism "pf'4 a,orY 970-420-2999 2000 F Hors&tooth Rd Fort Collins, CO 80525 The Energy We Live By" tail (970) 2264000 www.prpa.arg Johnson, Anne From: Sent: To: Subject Johnson, Anne Monday, December 18, 2017 11:49 AM Johnson, Anne FW: Simon landscape plan/fencing detail From: Mitch Nelson (maifto : mnelsontownofseverance.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:23 PM To: Johnson, Anne <Anne.Johnson@tetratech.com>; Kim Ogle ckogle@co.weld.co.us>; Nicholas Wharton <nwha rton @townofseverance.o rg> Cc: PINELLO, John (CHEYR) <JPinello@simoncontractors.com>; BAKER, Brett (CHEYC) cbbaker@simoncontractors.com> Subject: RE: Simon landscape plan/fencing detail Anne, Thank you for sending, the landscape plan is looking better and I understand the constraints involved with the easement one final comment: - The town would request that the signage not reference Severance, unless the applicant intends to Annex into Town Limits. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks Mitchell Nelson Town Planner Town of Severance 3 South Timber Ridge Parkway PO BOX 339 Severance, CO 80546 970-686-1218 TETRA TECH MEMO To: Cc: From: Date: Subject: Anne Johnson Click here to enter text. Barb Imel November 20, 2017 Landscape Plants List Juniperus scopulorum, Rocky Mountain Juniper Height 20-30' Mature Width 8-12' Very low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 10,000 feet. Growth Rate: 6.8" per year A pyramidal to upright rounded juniper with stiff spreading branches and shredding, reddish -brown bark. Foliage ranges from grey to green. Round dark blue fruit attracts birds. Evergreen tree provides habitat for wildlife. Tetra Tech 900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I -E, Longmont, CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 tetratech.com Juniperus scopulorum 'Wonglow," oonglow Juniper Height 12-15' Mature Width 6-8' Intense silvery blue foliage is displayed on a broad pyramidal form with a dense compact branching structure, a female selection with blue berries. Low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 8,500 feet. Growth rate 6-8" per year. Juniperus scopulorum 'Wichita Blue' Height 15-20' Mature Width 4-6' Bright silvery blue foliage on densely arranged, upright, spreading branches that flare outward creating a broad, pyramidal juniper. Very low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 8,500 feet. Growth rate 6-8" per year. 2 Tetra Tech Juniperus scopulorum "Gologreen', Cologreen Juniper Height 15-20' Mature Width 4-6' Upright branches arch slightly outward to form a columnar to pyramidal juniper with light green foliage and fleshy blue fruits. Very low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 8,500 feet. Growth rate 6-8" per year. 3 Tetra Tech Pinus nigra, Austrian Pine Height 40-00' Mature Width 30-40' A broad pyramidal to oval evergreen with thick plated, dark brown bark and wide spreading branches. Moderately long needles are dark, shiny green. Cones are conical and glossy yellowish brown. The tree loses its 3 - year old inside needles. The tree will not be as dense in open windy areas. Low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 8,000 feet. Growth rate 6-12" per year. 4 Tetra Tech Fallugia paradoxa, Apache Plume Mature Height 3-6' Mature Width 3-6' Shaggy whitish stems sparsely covered by small, light green leaves and single white flowers (above) through out summer. Feathery rose colored seed heads in fall (left). Very low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 8,500 feet. Growth rate: Slow -Moderate. 5 Tetra Tech Rhus typina, Staghorn Sumac Mature Height, 10-25' Mature Spread 10-15' A colonizing shrub or small tree (below) with thick fuzzy branches. Large bright green leaves turn striking shades of red in fall (middle. Velvety red fruit (left) develops in pyrqamidal clusters after light green flowers in early summer. Very low water requirement, full sun, hardy to 8,500 feet. Growth rate: Fast 6 Tetra Tech Small, pinkish white flowers in late spring and dark green leaves. Glossy black fruit in late summer persists into winter and attracts birds. Orange fall color. Ericameria nauseosa ssp. Nauseosa var. seciosa, Tall Blue Rabbitbrush Mature Height, 2-6' Mature Spread 2-6' Greenish white stems with bluish -gray leaves. Dense flat-topped slusters of small golden yellow flowers are borne from mid to late summer (below). Will naturalize Very low water requirement, sun, hardy to 8,500 feet. Growth rate: Medium 8 Tetra Tech hanicum virgatum 'Heavy Metal', Heavy Metal Switchgrass Mature Height: 3-4' Mature Spread: 12-18" Beautiful, stiff, metallic blue leaves form upright clumps which are topped by delicate shiny pink flowers in autumn (left). Foliage matures to bright yellow in fall (below). Low water requirement, sun, Hardy to 7000' Growth rate: Medium to Fast 9 Tetra Tech Lonnicera sempervirens 'Magnifica', Scarlet Trumpet Honeysuckle Mature Height: Vine Mature Spread Vine Clusters of long, trumpet -shaped flowers are red to red - orange with a yellow throat and are borne on dense, twining stems laden with bluish -green foliage. It primarily blooms in late spring, with sporadic blossoms through the rest of summer. Attractive to Hummingbirds. Medium water requirement, sun, hardy to 7000' Growth rate: Moderate to Fast. 10 Tetra Tech Simon Contractors Proposed Landscaping Plans — 3D Renderings U R17-0043 Western berm along State Highway 257 East Berms along WCR 80.5 CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Kim Ogle 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 December 20, 2017 RE: USR17-0043 (Cactus Hill Ranch Company and Simon Contractors/ Inc.) Dear Mr. Ogle: This letter is sent to you in reference to Condition of Approval LE, regarding "overland flows of water from the Property". The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Cactus Hill Ranch Company, a Colorado corporation, is the Owner of the Property upon which the above referenced USR is to be located/ which is part of the West One -Half CW1/2) of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. Additionally, Cactus Hill owns all additional property located south of the subject property being the entire Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section 16/ the East Half ([1/2) of Section 17, the West Half (W1/2) of Section 21 all located in Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Cactus Hill Ranch Company has agreed to receive and accept all drainage/ stormwater, and any other overland flows of water from the USR Property. These waters will flow onto Property of Cactus Hill Ranch located in said Sections 16 and 21 located directly south of the USR. Property in a manner consistent with historical flow and runoff patterns, at a point in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section 16. You are further advised that the historical flow patterns, runoff and stormwater amounts on the site will be maintained as required by Development Standard No. 30, with all such runoff to be received and accepted by cactus Hill Ranch as stated herein above. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very, very truly, Nels Nelson President, Cactus Hill Ranch Company 38990 State Hwy 257 Fort Collins, CO 80524 PHONE 970-686-2215 FAX 970-686-5851 A WrrEMADE J a r. STATE HIGHWAY 257 o - I kw • w STATE HIGHWAY 257 • —. as. • -•► ! 1 I I rIrniin-r>ll/Il7I/I/ INEPT- .o b 1 as a1 g a d WELD COUNTY ROAD 80 5 • J , o- d ROAD PLAN WELD COUNTY ROAD 80 5 SCALE I' - 60 SCALE 1- •eO TETRA T1CH www tetfetetit corn 1900 S Surat Si . Sta 1-E Lorypnont Colorado e0501 Prone (303) 772.5282 Fes (300) 7727039 SIMON CONTRACTORS COMPANY WELD COUNTY. COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 257 IMPROVEMENTS Protect No Date 133-01156-1/OW DEC 2011 Desagneo By JAB Figure FIG 1 Bar Measures ' inC^ Copyright Tetra tee J S U W 3 6 Er K Er W 1 - EA 8 1R STATE HIGH 11 AY 257 S I" p b b f 4 411. iNORTH SIDE'>ad ROW T - d d a a - _ ' =BTRANSrt LANE WELD COUNTY ROAD 80.5 - ANSrthiN TO ,; R0aowO1m a10. TRJCK STORAGE LAN- a Tr 1 Nut: � fiE�f Ittt • • -tlx +Hc xx xx IPc 11 xx _ )III MM MI(.. .--Irx I 3 f I //1 I I I ' i -- rim ROAD PLAN SCALE r - to TETRA TECH wens/ tetratech corn 1000 5 Summit St . Si. I .E Longmont Colorado 773501 Phone (303) 772-52a2 Fax (303) 772.7039 SIMON CON TRAC IT ORS COMPANY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WELD COUNTY ROAD 80 5 IMPROVEMENTS Propot No.. 133-01756-11001 Date DEC2011 I)esigne0 By JAB Figure FIG 2 I 1 S Traffic Impact Study S IMON CONTRACTORS Weld County, Colorado Traffic Impact Study SIMON CONTRACTORS Weld County, Colorado December 2672017 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION I II. CURRENT CONDITIONS A. Road Network B. Traffic C. Operating Conditions D. Surrounding Land Uses 7 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS7 A. Agency Discussions 7 B. Development Overview 7 C. Site Traffic 8 D. Trip Distribution 8 F. Future Traffic 12 F. Future Roadway System 12 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS .17 A. Short Term Improvements 17 B. Long Terra 19 V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS...21 VI, CONCLUSIONS 21 List of Figures Figure 1 Figure Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Vicinity Map 2 Current Roadway Geometry ,..4 Current Peak Hour Traffic 5 Concept Plan Site Traffic Distribution 10 Short Term Site Traffic �. 11 Short Term Background Traffic 13 Short Terra Total Traffic 14 Lang Term Background Traffic 15 Long Term Total Traffic 16 Short Term Roadway Geometry 18 Long Term Roadway Geometry e20 I. INTRODUCTION Simon Contractors is a construction materials supplier located at the sH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection in Weld County, Colorado. It is currently operational but plans to expand consistent with future demand. The site is located in the southeast corner of the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection about one-half mile south of SH 14. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. This traffic impact study assesses the current and planned future development. It updates the earlier study based on CDOT comments on the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersec- tion and contains the investigations and analyses typically contained in a full traffic study. Key steps undertaken as part of this study are defined below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current traffic operations to establish baseline conditions. • Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby street Sys- tern. • Estimate roadway traffic volumes for both short- and long-term conditions. • Evaluate traffic operations with the Simon Contractors fully operational under both short- and long-term conditions. • Identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate or ease the impact of site generated traffic as appropriate. 1� q 0 mi I 1.5 78 SITE 19 I Copyright @ and (P) 198-8-2012 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers, All rights raserved. htipti/www.microsoft.corristreats/ kip int-a-ms) 2 2.5 Figure 1 2 VICINITY MAP J lip CURRENT CONDITIONS A. Road Network The site is located in the southeast corner of the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection. These roadways are under CLOT and Weld County control, respectively. SH 257 is a major north -south arterial roadway having regional significance. It is a two- lane highway extending from SH 14 to Windsor. It has a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour adjacent to the Simon facility. Auxiliary lanes are generally available where needed. CR 80.5 is a two-lane gravel roadway extending east of SH 257. The SH 257 CR — 80.5 intersection is currently under stop sign control with the SH 257 SH 14 intersec- tion to the north under traffic signal control. To the east, CR 80.5 primarily serves rural development. Current roadway geometry is shown on Figure 2. B. Traffic Recent peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the SH 257 intersections with CR 80.5 and SH 14. Directional biases were noted with predominant movements during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Peak hour turning traffic at the SH 257 intersection with CR 80.5 and daily traffic on SH 257 are presented on Figure 3 with count sheets presented in Appendix A. 3 i1v SH14 LSTQP U, co NIte Cis80.5 Figure 2 4 �CURRENTROADWAYGE0METRY r CD '0 CI 0/3 4r--- 4491298 lc 67/40 245/464 -÷ 127/300 —� CO CO N CON “A, LEGEND: ANUPNM Peak Hour c co co N co It- 4/3 lc 3/2 tr CDCO CO CD U) CO SH14 CFA 80.5 Figure 3 S CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC J C. Operating Conditions Existing intersections were evaluated using current traffic loadings and roadway geome- try. For evaluation purposes, acceptable operations are defined as overall level -of - service "D"or better under peak hour conditions at signalized locations. At stop sign controlled intersections, LOS `E/F is considered acceptable for critical traffic move- ments during peak hours along arterial streets. These levels -of -service are considered normal at stop sign controlled intersections during peak hours. During off-peak times, significantly better operating conditions can be expected. Both peak hour periods were analyzed using capacity analysis procedures resulting in the operating levels -of -service (LOS) indicated in the following table. All traffic movements currently operate at ac- ceptable levels -of -service during both peak hour periods. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS E Intersection Control Movement/ Overall Level -of -Service AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Signal B B 5H 257 H 14 EEL — B B EB T EB R A A WB L B B B A WBTR NB L C NB TR A B SB L C B SB TR C Overall B B SH Stop WBLIB B B SB L A A Capacity analyses work sheets are included in Appendix B. 6 a Surrounding Land Uses Simon Contractors will occupy its current location and expand to the east in concert with demand. The surrounding area is primarily rural with limited residential development in the immediate area of the site. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Agency Discussions At the onset and throughout the course of this study, discussions were held with the County and COOT regarding the contents, assumptions, and evaluations contained in this study. Key points of agreement are identified below. 1. The SH 257 — CR 80.5 and SH 257 — H 14 intersections should be investigated as part of this study. 2. Peak hour counts should be conducted at the above intersections. 3. Published annual traffic growth rates can be used to estimate future traffic, Be Development Overview The current development schedule anticipates on -going operations at the existing facility with future growth to serve area needs. The site currently has several accesses to CR 80.5 which are expected to remain in the future. While subject to local demand, build out is assumed in about 5 years (2022) which represents the short term time frame. At build out, an estimated 250 truck round trips are expected each day with 35 employees reporting to this location. Primary work times will generally be from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM or daylight hours. Site activities are seasonal and will be driven by construc- 7 tion demands, weather, and daylight. A limited amount of nighttime work is typical given activities such as roadway construction and maintenance. Site traffic will access the site using one or more of the three proposed driveways. While there will be some crossover traffic, the west driveway will serve as an exit with the center driveway serv- ing as an entrance. The east most driveway will primarily serve employee traffic. A preliminary concept plan for the Simon Contractors is presented on Figure 4. C. Site Traffic Future site traffic was estimated by Simon Contractors. The estimate was undertaken for representative peak season peak hour conditions. It was determined that 250 trucks per day with the peak hour having up to 20 trucks was reasonable for use in this study. Additionally, 35 employees was determined reasonable during the high seasonal peaks. These trips were assumed to occur at the beginning and end of the primary shift which was assumed to overlap street peak hours. These assumptions lead to a very con- servative evaluation of site impacts and results in a 300 - 400% increase in site traffic over current conditions. a Trip ' i tr bution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of deliveries and employee work trips. The estimated directional distribution of site traffic was developed with input from Simon Contractors and is shown on Figure 5. As indicated, the distribution reflects the predominance of SH 14 in the area street system and anticipated delivery areas. Peak hour site traffic is shown on Figure 6 for the short term (2022). 8 y:ruylyv_ i4t,ii.4tLc) 6£WL-Zi:':£LOG'' Zeritttt(WO .)uayd n re C ,USIN ula•rpI j'p Midi' IN" 3- -618 elearlE 1691 -NS' 1�3S(•lfil H33.11111131 M3G',3a 3N11A7a'�e'! Itil ( lrU:: . NVld 9l1S - lle1$11-Art3iA9 1 lbloaa$ 1.9 asr) S.Nifld 11VI-IdSV'9 XINI AUV DON'rldDAJS NOLIAL OJC]a 71 z: 'd'dti ty CcordO140'!.: N110r7 4110, ..N'L/MOD 5?ldl: e:dire) NOLIIS C a IO r (N C 2 d ,�� C f orz 1— cir g. It Z O J 0ILIJ C?i ci-°H< GO r� u_o C0_O ri co co c -DE - u r, w 05 () W c3 i CC I -6w J>- z (DIE wWz�s w <w co I -z PZI <El a W u. W<0 o W O_z c. 'U i Co ft W 9 O p'0 a: 81- 7JW 3 3 — II r - D9 vti IL .3 LL ¢c $L f LC fl L L r LYE AMH 1.1/' EHTF<A:?ICE r 1 t tdf r Ir 1+ rr rr r+ ' r r ` re ; rr r .1/ r f / II if I I f -I -r III C') W LM TING t.LiJOR CONTOURS 1.1 INT.; EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS ii' INT.I T b J u if Lit 2 Yu g a itE PROPERTY PENCE 8 ft {'J 1 1 EXISTING' ASPHALT ROAD SECONDARY CONTAINMENT NOTE: z _ 9 '41 trm J J II u -1- s. a- .a < y IL J o Z e a = W • (GRAVEL ROM EXISTING UTILITY POUF A 0 tJ 11 TEMPORARY FACILITY ACCESS ROAD NCTF; PROPOSED PORTOI F PROPO FII TRASH FNCI OSIIRF -r J D 1 Y .l L A :n am as It 2 J C xF IC ( L M Z or 0H OE SECTION CORNER MARKER PRCROSEO GATE f 0 Ear Measi'es 1 inch i CONCEPT PLAN iLL u 1 w e SA APFDRC FOISITOkHf Ma-F)YtTItlrll F'.FR1I- RRHLlc'si.^hLcwL-fIv6(1Fnw6/Lrp +-44Y/Z7h- 1./107,148 N - lc 15% / 20% SH rir 70% / 90% , 0%/10% N- 11, Csi CO LEGEND: Employees/Trucks Er' C i CIS 80.5 Figure 5 10 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION z z V 10/5 35110 Thr WK1 N a En 15.2 0 LEGEND: AMIPM Peak Hour N = Nominal 0 CD C 0 ica 0 11 Is it OZ UZ N SH 14 30 (10 Trucks + 20 Cars) [50 POE] -- 45 (15 Trucks + 30 Cars) j75 PCE] 5 (2 Trucks + 3 Cars) [9 PCE] 10 (4 Trucks + 6 Cars) [18 P C E] CR80.5 uJ C B 0 N C) 0 a) 1' 0 co + 0) 0 11 LU Figure6 SITET FF[C a' E. Future Traffic Short term (2022) background traffic was developed using the earlier noted annual traffic growth rates with long term background traffic estimated using the same growth rates out to 2040. Short term background and total peak hour traffic for the year 2022 are presented on Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Total traffic is the combination of background traffic and site traffic. Long term background traffic and long term total traffic in 2040 is shown on Figures 9 and 10, respectively. F. Future Roadway System The future roadway system (major roadway widening and improvements) was consid- ered for both short- and long-term evaluation years. The assumed roadway improve- ments for each evaluation period are described below. hort term Long term No improvements. No improvements. Site specific improvements related to the Simon Contractors development will be de- termined in the following sections of this report. s 12 0 1.O Z rZZ IC N/5 44- 515/340 75/45 10/15 -14 280/530 � 145/345 0 0) 0 i NA - LEGEND: All PM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. LO CNI 0 0) co jk-- 5/5 *0-- 5/5 thai U, o4 x V SH CR80.5 Figure 7 13 KSHORTTERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CD Z �z z jt- N15 4- 515/340 lc 85/50 10/15 280/530 —DP. 180/355 � 0 0) n LEGEND: AWPM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. crY 175- Ns - 1.O CO It-- 30/45 5/10 0 LLD SH14 CR80.5 Figure8 14 SHORT TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC 0 ro 5/5 4- 700/465 r 115/70 10/20 --14 380/725 -DP 215/515 c NCO r chs LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 'I) At ry uDo r 0 LO CD SH CR80.5 Figure 9 1 5 LONG TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 2 Lt7 r� LO r to 5/5 44- 700/465 �.--- 125/75 10/20 380/725 --► 250/525 C N- LO1.75 N CO Lci LEGEND: ANUPM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 1r) a r o o at— 40/50 15/15 N- In 041 0) (IF tin r to 04 lor SHI4 CR80.5 Figure 10 16 LONG TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC 2 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to assess operating conditions with Simon Contractors fully operational, high- way capacity analysis procedures were utilized at each key intersection. These are the CR 80.5 — SH 257 and the SH 257 — SH 14 intersections. Site access intersections with CR 80.5 were not considered worthy of investigation given minimal traffic on CR 80.5. Analyses were undertaken for both short- and long-term conditions. At the onset of these undertakings, traffic volumes were reviewed at each location to identify the need for auxiliary lanes using CDOT State Highway Access Code criteria or an upgrade in intersection controls. Findings for both short- and long-term conditions are docu- mented in the following sections. A►. Short Term Improvements Short term peak hour traffic indicates the need for the following auxiliary lanes and traffic control improvements at the intersection(s) shown below. SH 257 — CR 80,5 southbound left turn lane on SH 257 at CR 80.5. A northbound right turn lane on SH 257 at R 80.5. A westbound to northbound right turn acceleration lane on SH 257, north of CR 80.5. It should be noted that short and long term traffic signal needs were evaluated at the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection. It was determined that traffic signals will not be warranted at this intersection. The anticipated short term geometry is shown on Figure 11. No additional improve- ments will be needed in the long term. 17 i ai11/4. trE- i tn C" 0) * Acceleration Lane 1Th 8H 14 CR Figure 11 8 SHORT TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY Key intersections were analyzed using capacity analysis procedures with the results indicated below. 2022 OPERATING ONDITION (WITH Build Out of Simon Contractors) Intersection Control Movement/ Level -Service -of Overall AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Signal EB L B B SH 257 — SH 14 EB T B B ER R A A WB L B B WB TR B B NB L CI NB TR B B BBL C C SB TR C C Overall C B Stop WB LR B B SH 257 — CR 80.5 BBL A A As shown above, operating levels of service with Simon Contractorsfully built will be acceptable at all locations. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix E. it should be noted that capacity analyses were only conducted to the level necessary to indicate acceptable operations. Consequently, added tweaking could result in improved opera- tions. B* Long Term No major roadway improvements are anticipated over the short term; however, a se- cond northbound left turn lane on SH 257 at SH 14 is assumed built in the long term. The need for this lane, if it materializes, is not related to Simon Contractors but to significant background traffic growth associated with primary destinations to the west. The anticipated long term roadway geometry is shown on Figure 12. 19 444 SH 14 * Acceleration Lane 1� CR 80.5 Figure 12 20 LONG TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY Traffic estimates for the long term time frame were analyzed. Operating conditions with long term total traffic including Simon Contractors are presented below. 2040 OPERATING CONDITIONS (WITH Build Out of Simon Contractors) Intersection Control Movement/ Overall Level -of -Service AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr SH 257 — H 14 Signal B A EE L B B EE T A A EB R WB L B B WB TR C A NB L D B NB TR B B sB L sB TR Overall C B sH 257 — R 80.5 Stop WB LR B B BBL A A As shown, all traffic movements and overall operating conditions will be acceptable at all locations. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix E. V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS southbound left turn lane will be needed in conjunction with this development. Based on CDOT State Highway Access Code design criteria, the following parameters are appropriate for a 12 foot wide lane and the existing 65 MPH speed limit. CDOT desired speed limits and all design parameters will need to be confirmed and/or modified during preliminary design. Redirect tapers should be based on the posted speed limit(s). Lane Storage Accel/Decel Length Total Length SB Left Turn Decel 100' 800' 900' NB Right Turn Decel 0 800' 8001.1) NB Right Turn Accel 0 1,380' 1.380' (1) Due to the existing drainage structure this lane will be 575' long. A variance will be required. 21 VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analyses and investigations, the following are concluded: • Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Simon Contractors site. • Simon Contractors will generate up to 90 peak hour trips and 570 daily trips on the area street system. • Auxiliary lanes on SH 257 at CR 80.5 are needed to serve this development. These are indicated on Figure 11. All traffic movements will operate acceptably under stop sign control. • Traffic signals will not be warranted nor needed to obtain acceptable and safe operations at the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection through the long term. • Long term operating conditions will be acceptable with the addition of a second northbound left turn lane on SH 257 at SH 14. The need for this lane, if it materi- alizes, is not related to Simon Contractors but to significant background traffic growth associated with primary destinations to the west. • Long term levels of service will be essentially the same whether or not Simon Contractors is developed. • Simon Contractors is viable from a traffic engineering perspective. In summary, the traffic impacts associated with Simon Contractors and a general in- crease in area traffic can be fully accommodated by the identified street system. Ac- cordingly, acceptable traffic conditions are expected in the vicinity of the Simon Contractors site through the long term. 22 APPENDIX A cc CD CIAi C� ntersection: Observer: Vickie r C w Severance, CO ZIA O p CO 0 C= . ■ a i EUGENE G. COPPOLA, P.O. Box 630027 I to C DO 0 O +I� 0 mine ari Phone: (303) 792-2450 N- Oki C C*' CO Cri, in Cpl i 044 t cSil 0 04 r Csii o CM en cm CO Ci Ltd CO CO 0 0) CD In r csi r r '-- r r :punoq;saA r r r r r 0 0 0 0 CSI 0 0 t'4 cc, CNal C I CO Cr I— I w" r r r• 04 CSI CO C)O r 0 CI - 0O ti'? di r cn c! T`� LO co CO to -■ + r re C IA � C CJ C C 3 C LLB 0 €o c'i to CN r r Iota! h/south Ln C CD [� f� CO c--4.1 to QO ' 7 co Ca chi cm csia t i mil Cu e 'K - r Cam! t Z 0 r CJ r r O -0 o 0 Q Q CNI r r r C3 CO O C 0 0 0 0 t r C Ca "Cr cri egal co, U) z LC tO CC Lf 0' to 'f+ me r a O w C 04 0 - r r r r ,.a ..0 t 0 In �_ Ltd C CD CO = 0 • N- 0 LO 0 to a r 0 LO i.: c) ca 0 1n c) Co 0 in ' 00 0 r t+ 0 r c0 0 a m a eq r CA Co tO LC; CD CO C eq Cq ces i C3) to 0 Cal C 0 cal Co C,, CD 0 A C}`, C` ! Lin on CV -*S. CO u) CAI en. N. vi' 0 r ce'7 nzt co co r co C to C) a r 0 C C, CD oo CM C) Cal Cat C Q LL a_ i TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Highway 257 & CR 801/2 Intersection: w 0 a . 4.x C, en 0 t — r 0 Owl N- Severance, CO a a f� CD CU EUGENE G. COPPOLA, Pt, P,0. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 Phone: (303) 792-2450 i E r Q3 Q3 u t U II I, v CO CO Co Cr, CO a 0, Talan o CC th fo Cd) 4'%i ,Rs o MI CD r r -- l p .O C17 C) - 1- - \ . C*> - t- to 7— r it- te I 1 r r r r i Ur) - r - C4 • O -t-- C a n_ 05 0 LLI 0 - 0 0 0 I cti r V CC - t FO 1' J ' Y I' Total north/south i 1.- CO eq CO CO CO :punogyjnog ti'r] Lt3 � 4 fla 0 €] I- i i I I -- c' I FT3 C+'3 4 ..J I C\L r {''s.l L.L Northbound: 0 Cr) 1 If, M *cT 0 "it cr-+ O fIC 0 0 0 1— CO C'+) to tt , qt 01 E Cp - 0 o 0 1OO c' O6 Lt i r 617 lam ,-! cre 0) , co a 0 r - a I wt c r o CJ o r I o n1 o o I a a a a I 0, 03 I I 1 . 11".- CO CO I r Cr, 2 4 to U '+[f a LO • CO LO - o o r- i' e el en mit ■ r a t- r CO Zt N- •- • I i=s • 0 , r J I co a 44 O in Ai U) 0 ■ ■ 0 APPENDIX B HCS 2010 Two General -.In ormationt Analyst _ _________ -Way Stop CSummary Report Intersection 257 - 80.5 Agency/Co. • Jurisdiction • Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 803 Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed caz: PM Peak Hour Factor 092 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025 Project Description Lanes • • . _ , ':' �ti'�-sa F:w� till • .i�"t "'; i:: :�:' ��. }t r.1.:....-.:- �. 1-: tt iia •1 :4k: it5•.(•C- _ • ate .•._ . •Y•1c•1 ,-.• _K.. .r;Ls. tr l.i .. �. Yin •..s ..,_ .: } ti, - � Y; is Y/ V 4•y "a. , J^,J1 •.fl �4 t-• .1''r�•5. Lf'�t''4�r' f,: L' .'R:• •• ... 'Y �r'J --2-;:a.,-,•--`:;L• '. 1 �:='';'s's •:' -. r'{'• c :.;22"":.".;:- "s t.-:-_. •'`4 .�iy.jr .•r•_.. J -yam'•=:. .•Lr1:2� '.� ;!'• tlrtcr.VSti', IrkC. t art - -•• rj-. H .d. -...1i..7...:11„... . . .f: -L.-. ii 0:: ii`•,'••Y• +T . •j. •••�.-.�•(••::1t-'C 4�L•••••.•t'' !. •.r \^,--'E.�.•...•'.Ll..; a - .. N..n^rt_'•.1!...•?V i-'7t• r fM1•. t'{i"l ty.'_•..."7.6s-:;;:rt. i•µit,e is ..1...;0! f-_; .1 •-.1 : n. ,�Ti�•;-T,,.:5•.;:;.:t•1:�T.: j� t.t., }'-; J`.. "4-t.-1:-;_.. •..L , c^..• .,,. •r r•• - r r . a ,•.. r •' r!..":". s, ti•• 1.i }.. fir. J:.1r t••:•.♦• �.: ;r•�•..-::`. r-;::.7.. mi r�r.--.- t'w.^1 .',{hr y. :�' r. 9.r.rr r.' i1 1,+} --;*-,..-4.---%.:0; et int _L%' ,'-'4,ill • L•-'..•L•l,Y,. •iy �•L :_•,Y_ Pubi" V'•" -:r• - i .- ') !.....-4.0.S.'•r•.•rf-ere, r�: �....:'r•-..L'. if-': r'rr.7'S- :t - .- Si : . C.' -.1%;'r 4:'•::~ --- .err.•:.::i• ._a`Y;•'_.' I,.'�4' •' t . — --,1.'. • •;'.,.^:,,• lrt•' i*ti ± • Gril ,gffl L m1 .. Major Street Mor5h-South • Vehicle- Volumes and Adjustments . Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement flL T T R RIli LIIII L I Uilla Priority 10 11 1 2 ' 4U 41111. 6 12 7 8 9Ill 0 0 Number of Lanes II. 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MN Configurationmum TR11111 LT LRisimmain In Volume (veh/h)inns imi 4 1111 359 1 7 187 MI 3um Percent Heavy Vehicles 1111 1111 MN IIII 20 2011111 20MI . la IN Proportion Time Blocked 11111111 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type - Undivided Median Storage • Delay, Queue Lengthy and - Level of Service .• " _ Flow Rate (veh/h) 1111 7m iiiimill an imi 8 um Capacity 11111111= 519 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1076 u/c Ratio alas0.01 11111. a urn 0.01 .111111 95% Queue Length =Mem" iiiiiIIIMINIMIIIIII 0.0ISM all 1111 Yao Control Delay (s/veh) MI11011111.1111.1111 8.4 Level of Service (LOS) 11111. 1111 B 11111 A 0,4E Approach Delay siveh)IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 12.0 imminis .immummi Approach LOS B Report - - - _ • , ' ^ ' °- • • • :. r .. - -. - - -, • HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control Summary . li ws in -J... -.- F.. i.r 'CI'. 2011 Y • -t' "•'�y.T •• .. "' ..-,a : Nit re S 1:' _ • r - - .J f.; . . I . tr- 'a . i' -_T. ,,1 . e' r firX . - •. • O. a;y-.' - r _ a-• r -So -*.^. Ian 'l '_• '�. • Generat.infckrmat`on • • I• ¢ ._ ' . .• `• _ • • ' . ��r� i• . , - _ _ ..� .. tr- ._ ,, ' • • Site Information ' -- �� ...`� tea_ - - e ,�'•- .. -' -- Analyst Intersection 257 - 80.5 Agency/Co, Jurisdiction - Date Performed 7/12/2017 Ea west Street 803 Analysis Year 2017 a North/South Street 257 lime a Analyzed f ST LT AM . PM Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South• IAnalysis Time Period (hrs) 025 Project Description Lanes '- 1.2i Pt4 fR [13" .- - . •I. '•r•-,. `•'1 " .' .- •'• } 'r;.' ..-.. ...• : •. - -- - - r•,''' r#1#-4�‘k1H!-.'r.�Lyltr�•-—'c.o...,,"wy1.::". r ...n.tc-c.r- .,: 'n.ai' •.C,. r•✓.1. -: 1_.&.1�'r`/+._ {'..• y.::..•q ,-• • .1 —at er:'y in : at •-•\} �`!ee-�L'1'`.. .L -a4•:., tYI!e`r-• �1lS S. .••'w1' ,�ft1.'1: _. •7f•i•1 es -kfIC-''S' 1 ';..';•. .)1•t.„•,`� i-'? fr•�L ` .e•11:S. �1f0 . Lts• { .• `tr'...,C-...... :14 f,....p 'r. t.:t7;2--.:...,A,...,,,. ...-..•:j•7•^yr•. -5•e• --- t -.1:•-•.:4r .•v.•c:S or.a • itr"'`.:-:-.•'r t..' - '.'e •=.'a -1 `' {:''ti` r ..1 4 f:'. fir'!'-. ,. ;11). ' •- - •.' � -'� ..'.'..: .. p•Y • ... ter. vI SFr. • •.,. .'.:,, (3+' j].•. 1N1 :V. ni.;:r: •�aa i3;►ti ::ri. i�'rte. r.r..6.r4•sl,f••'-.,�Tl `,.., = L_.2 •J , f . :•1'L.. C• -,t_.. ..Fr i-J'�-.,:`'r ei b..-,..-itf,tir.' ,. �.. .,i cf; 'r. V,••. -ti T: rr �1, !_' tij •L .e .L-. •_.,e�}}��-. f•. -e •i:;: j_ rr: - •. -•: ate- 'r::r - • r•.{r.4:11il . •r. ." K. Ay.J j 1f, 1't{.` ;•, ter. -t". %`'.. 1r f k- ri }yY':� 1 {S�• r Fri -1. �rTff • .'�' +•L' 4.••••t?rc,°'_F. f.il a•: fr•T�r�k -k GC.-••• St -31..t...::°:3 `.+., t •, 3;, •...-: • •'-�.t-' . f • :�"..f: eic rg: • •'.• .F tI�:'-ti: C.'.: ;'; T �r uwasGVii•^.T'rc;w .7=•'r;r-`?ew•x.:r•-..s: r'�;iir..:; i::'.ra r',''iF. -i• • I." •# :. 7•'• •• .-.. •��. '_.._ a4. - •,'... . .. G.- : 1 , "I. ell: Egg] IT 3 dri Major Street forth -South - - - 4 Vehicle VoltiMes and Ad justments - Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement a - iiii a,lliT R ULIIII R U L T RIII Lmai 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Priority 10I111111111 7 8 9ilia 0 0 Number of Lance iiii. 0NM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 011111 0 Configuration1.1111 Volume (veh/h)is LR IIOIIIIIIII TRnem In 230 3a lail 343 an Percent Heave vehicles 20 20MIS all 20in le Proportion Time Blocked allill imina Right Turn Channelized No No No too Median Type Undivided Median Storage a . •• - belay, -Queue•=Lenith, and Level of Service , - ' Flow Rate (veh/h)iii 1111111111111111111111111111111 2mill Capacity MI IIMI 1214111 MI la 568imiimiluili v/c Ratio Ma 0k01 1111 milli 0,00 1111 IliM 95% Queue Length 0.0sem is 0.0la Control Delay (sehnalliIIIM 11.4 1111.111111 8.0a a mainissiiiiiiii Level of Service (LOS) IIII B111111.1111.11 Aill Approach Delay (s/veh)iiiimmillia 11.4IIIIIIIIIIIIM 0.1 Approach LOS - B HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary en ral Informati n Intersection Information ` 'di_ . , .1.r A�enoy ----------- Duration, h f -- - Pi � 7 Analyst Analysis Date Nov 1 01 Area Type Other urisdictiori Time Period PHF (192 • Urban Street 1111111111111.1111 Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 intersection 14 - 257 File Name 1 _ Is Project Description AM PM e2b ST LT •, MMM Demand Inform_ . EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L L R Demand ( v), veh/h gal 1111111 245 127 67 1111111111 449 0 337 111 3 ..__ 0 NI 9 Cycle, s 48.0 Reference Phase 2 - - 0 Offset, s 0 Reference Point EndI ; Green 0.5 2.6 12.x' 2,0 0.0 { {,-. ••-t, .. - Ewa - YP • .T •_. ti Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EM On 4.0 0:0 4.0 4.0 0.0 d - _.-.�it. _ Force On Red 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 '1.0 0.0 3 --if-.. . { '. -: :, .7 s Timer Results EBL EBT WBL VVBT NBL NBT SBL Sr Assigned Phase Case Number 1 3,0 4.0 I • .. Phase Duration, s 17.4 8.1 20.0 nillEcill ME 7.0 hane Period,'tf, s 5.0 5.0_� Marc ,ilQv+ Headway MAJL1 , s 3.1 3.0 3.'13.0 3.13.3ill C ueue learance Trrie }, s 2,1 7.6 3.4 13,8 11.32.52.3 green tension Time, s 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 Phase Call Probability 0.10 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.99 0.40 Max Out Probability 0.00n_n 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results ES NB SB _Approach Movement T R Ell= R L MaR L Int R Assigned Movement mer t 12 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h s 266 138 73 0 366 28 10 Adjusted Saturation Plow Rate ( s ), veil/Win 1810 1863 1610 1810 1859 5 1810 1639 um 1404 1610 Queue Service Time ( gs), s 0.3 ME0.0 0.0 0,3 - Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ) s 0.1 5.6 2.3 1.4 0.0 9.3 0,5 reen FatioC0.27 0.26 0 202 480 802 • S 435 599 -150 i 0.000 0,145 11111 Flolume-fe- ap city Ratio 0.038 0.555 ! i 0.000 0.842 0.047 Back of f ueue O }, ftfln 50 th percentileEel 46.2 12.9 11 0 102.4 3.9 0 2.6 IIIII =In.. I Back of Queue ( Q }, vehf[n (50 th percentile) 0.1 1,8 0.5 (14 0.0 4.1 0.2 Queue Storage Ratio 50 tit p rcentile) 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FlinEll Uniform Delay ( d i ), sfveh 14,1 fl 6.6 11.8 MIMI 17.4 9.9 11111 0.0 ala Increr ental L eiay t< , slvel� 00.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 II In tial Queue De[ay d , slveh f � r 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 Control Daley , s/veh 14.2 13.9 11.9 24.5 • • a 0.0 22.6 l - Level of Service (LOS) BB 1 B III - C A. 119111.111 _ ... Approach Delay, veh LOS 11.5 B 13.9 B C 22.5 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.0 B Multimodal Results EB VVB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score I LOS OEM M. "MIMI Bicycle LOS Score / LOS ME Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, AU Rights Reserved. HCS 2010 na Streets Version 620 Generated: 7/1212017 2:41:30 PM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information .r ){ ` laI Agency Duration, h 0.25 4 - _ _ Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 13, 2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction lime Period PHF 0,92 —.. . c Urban Street �* Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 14 - 257 File Name i F' Project Description AM PM J ST LT t t.rTvi t; ra Demand Information EB 1 VB NB .- � SB Approach Movement L T R L T R T R R Demand ( v), veh/h fl 464 300 40 298 3 2 59 1 _ , _ 5 9 Signal Information r _� Y .- ;_.._ Cycle, s 45.7 Reference Phase 2 � v Offset, s 0 Reference Point End = Green 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_t� ..=- � - � .. . � - r ... Unc�oerdinated Yes Sirnult. Gap E�VIf On fellow . [0 _ 01.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 i _ , , : -_.�-- - - . Force Mode Fixed Simult,a NHS Red r On.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 • " 6 a _ �'- 8 Timer Results EBL EBT V"BL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase1111111111111E MEI 6 7 4 - 8 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.3 -- - Phase Duration, s a 20,2 7.1 21.6 10.2 18.4 8.3 Change Period,_( Y+R c), s 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway p AI -0, s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g 3), s - __ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Green Extension Time (g e), ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Max Movement Approach Out Probability Movement Group Results 0.00 EB T 0.00 R 0.00 L WB T 0.00 _R 0.00 L NB T 0,00 R SB T 0.00 R Assigned Movement 2 12 1 0 16 7 4 14 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Saturation Flow lute s ), vehlh�'[n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uue Service Time ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ': 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ycie ueue clearance True ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Green Ratio_( g/C) 0.35 023 0.47 0.38 0.30 0.79 0.29 0.07 0.07 Capacity ( c), vehlh 402 618 752 307 675 245 476 254 122 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.030 0.816 0.434 0.142 0.485 0.764 0.139 0.004 0,125 Back of Queue ( Q ), ftAn (50 th percentile) 1.5 75.7 35.6 5.2 37.6 44.3 10.3 0.2 3.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), vehlin (50 th percentile) 0.1 3.0 1A 0.2 1.5 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ ) (50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1), s/veh 10.2 11.5 8.2 10.4 9.0 19.1 11.9 19.8 19.9 incremental Delay__( d 2), s1veh 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Queue Delay ( d3), stveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), slveh 10.2 12.6 3.3 10.5 9.2 21.0 12.0 19.8 20.1 Level of Service (LOS) BB A B A C B B C Approach Delay, slveh I LOS 10.9 B 9.3 A 18.6 B 20.1 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results slveh I LOS - ES 11.9 WEB NB B SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS NM. - Bicycle LOS Score I LOS - Copyright O 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved, HGS 2010TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/12'2017 2:41:30 PM APPEN [xc - --.. — -..... . -.._ _ __-_ HCS 2010 Two Way Stop Control - --- - ---- —_._____._ Summary _ _ I+ Report �i':. 'yky ,i'. -:v,` 1 .,. ..t ,.. - raj, ..; en• r 4. v I 1 M S4 �• �y�._,Lm�r •�'. •• 'i �'i. .a • f•aa / 'T • :Jkr .� ≥ N• •. - "• �x.�• s '1,• ..�; -�• '# } eneraiirktor,i.J i• - a 1 .. • .. 'L "#' '.•�4A: r�:t .Y 45' _ • i` .. a, .%%rte •Analyst •b .'..•'j. .,t' •' .-• P" -.Yr-' •!j� _ •. — _I. f f. li - 1 .� .. •, ea _ i;i ?t' • "} rb s• .i . .. r'+.. _r,•-•., •1 .•�`4 -i• r - - • ' S • ♦• -- i _ • . . A.. _ 4.v - .+._• -i .'> • - . . ar ..! ,. t .1 'r • .. • •�k ', 41 •r�/'Ya•�. �.y . A • i... • •a . •�• •• In form a ♦ _.. • " .. Intersection 257 - 803 Agency/Co, Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed 1011 PM Peak Hour Factor 0,92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025 Project Description - ' I •' - .9 - - A_ - '-• r ._-° fir = •• • •-_ _ •• - Cr. r -.4;:i• ih.I•vi.•..rp i;^'cr1-°Tti' ).��ti..;s.:. � 'i" -. � .� �� 2.'r�2a Sr".;. J _• 1.-1' aae11'rJ'ti\. Y_Z1: at :t`Y '7-r."1.;..ir �-.+� I ^�_� '♦'.'.r.i Y �}r..i• i..1 1. =.C -C. •: ..r y fcv ♦:}:- °i"4 :. •' •F (--lr �J_..1I 1- " CAF.e''.. V. 7 •I :-- 7.`,..•7:1;----; •♦', •vim �• !V �e!.t°J•..'•, j*� •y --1 -,i'. •mil' -\'''C' ' 1 e e: 4 F. _' • 1'� ..w �, .`;a.a '•y-••;h.? j'YL:_ v :•�J. v.. rL:: .e•-•: •y �:. era �'r..11;i.•�•:i.I{"-.^�+•a: �'rr •--'mil • c •.. .L'. J": ,K' r:. sft, }a ..c sZ�.•' '... • X�ba •r.l '•''• -''rjJ?•..i�.• Y '-tat '4: fp -.r.'•.. 1..--..„ ={...1_i- ..-i-ii'.` CA.„, t - - Ir', 'I J'a • f ti-�.... ..• 1r.: : PI7. I -s-v :-• "-:1 •'f - - a 're g,;"' e. s: ► yti"4yI•s;Lrr'.!- c-% e.tiy-'�CC•i1-1t ►^�-„g-.:-s..' j1%S • - -.V 1--R;II `kite •••%.,...",:l.`;'::.`..` . -1'' Ip�.'1. ;;;;,:7`.••:•,;•‘&5• .a.T._'r• .1 µ tc: • -S i. ,•••••";-.3,:t."- . f ti t . 5...7 '.. '..5.,•e T - t • • . . '"o r•v -•.I • •C „.••••..:, a 1 -' •.Jr... 1•a �"i'.4,-7..--,..-...-- '•. •f". Y+ ' a7..r.Iv .,... :m- -P�f1�:-�T�.• f.T- '•.;* -:- • .• .f •'.1 :Pw i!r, j•:Jit .• Prune 4LC'TY 1.S•.r•,I • .....: .ni..-,F...: • C:'-.... 7,:12;,7",, ma, !]i J r.�i-5'''!i•7/.,.".W.;'i_ •e•K".� .r'l ti 21r,�.'• y3•ti :-.-:. •..:2 -(�. 1.4.:4'..:41.1 2. it ♦�i• •?-a: : I -.♦., . Y• - :-•.ti '..•l!1 r... -1:.•- ••!- -!- .•.. - -•*' : : J...1:• .. 'r."' �. .f • .•� • •!i'�• I...,• • .•,.•;.=. .. .•a'. : •: :' .`- - • JI-_•, [ill En 1 Ea Major Street_ North -South • 6 - -a Vehicle Volumes -ai t: Ad ustmei P is - . Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement El L T R U L T R U I T R L i R Priority al 10 11 12lal 7 8 9 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11111 0 ConfigurationIN all a LRism. MI TR Volume (veh/h) 30 IIII 41Ell 5 45 210 MI Percent Heavy Vehiclesmimi mi is 20all 20 20 MIN Proportion. Time Blocked MI 1111 IIII IN UM Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay..- Queue• _ Len€gth, _and Level of Service h) Flow Rate (veh/Milillall MEM 38 al II. 49 Ili IIII Capayal , all againimaismi 1007 Ma v/c Ratio 0.07 • 0.05MIN 95% Queue Length= a 02il. i MI I. 0.2 MIS Control Delay (s/reh) IIII 12.6 8.8 I. Level of Senriice (LOS)illiall Bal al MI A al Approach Delay (s eh) 12.6MIIIIIIIIIIIMI 1.5 Approach LOS Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved, Ha 2010 TM T iSC version 6.80 TwSC1 SW Generated: 7/12/2017 3:13:02 PM __._ . .,•-._ --_. -• r ari.. C." • .% .- -.0 •Ir "r;.- .0:•04.` .. a3 -'J • - -. 4•r T.it - - ... • b-: • _ .. s- • . • . _ �- . - • ' ________ . _ _. ____ .__________ _ HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control Summary Report . . _. __.!. .. , . ..,..... •„,.. „yr,: . _ ..: • .. r • - • • - _ .. • •• 1 - . -• r -- . - r - - - •• . • - - • Analyst Intersection 257 - 803 Agency/Co. - Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East, est Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 - North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed EX LT AM PM Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description v .a. 4v - t r. •_ + ifffff/ffYi'•I nes • • °fr ew _ • • • ' _ • r i ' a - - - `• .fr `• - - _ . , ; _ • • •�• _ v • • R •:t 13.4 ��i f�e"G �� ti.Yr•^•' 1J4 1• '7—'•l .. nt:r1�'�n 1s r• r �4' r'4 re..a----. F.•. /. ?ti.71a-•1:'• •S'�•.`.1. r-..r.e-•4'�i1C.•-•:r�4 • I • .tt 11 115-.1.:'1‘1;72; ►�4 i'lr✓:..'1.•-i`i,,a 1f -7. - .h 4•t: rj-5•.•• ti1•�S�--=��-�,.'f•fi:...V r it• -4,- "r'. . r..;1.. 1f•Mi':i�'r 'a." t-'••} ; •r 1��: :7,- .•:•.....1.•%:,-..-,... : Lin .1-.- 1 pp _.f :.i _rte .\t J,.. rl+:,:....;77:.... a✓.4r". �I i�.G i�::ar!' . % •.'R1-'-7 {,- 1f!-Si1 i1 -w•1.5 J*' •r. .1✓ fr,Le —'i e NI r4'7'a'..... ;;;:,-.;;;.:,14-'::„.-; w-t1"i!'- f\ti 1h'f14`a •`:-• mil •`•—: r a *;: •. .�j";�tri �.ar:;.-��:�..�. -. f,-. a,:�`yS�'".T;:ir a`:>!a•a_- ✓_.• a•i •.-:7.4:2:~' r.fi-:•S-- ,.� .. J4 ♦>'[""••�: .'1i: .C:` 7 •.^h. �I-' ti 1-r~i- r`�''! 1'`�+'Y•.C G...f._-mil •' . - } r41: IL.- •r r1: - ti 4'-: it .•'$,' ti. . , R. arl i+�`. 'a• • �: r -T ----.41•,,..'l N.';‘,...;-,--- ;,... -- r5'Y(_`Ti . i • '�• .ti. s sili .,r -- *,}L;r�J7 •. •a(r ••R .144:"..:1°-..•...�__ an-.eJ.� 7. SJ /lam. O-•:7;:-.. _. i-:r ~.!C-.•.'' •: n/ i. .._r. µ '•.7 err.''•-: t1 R• I'a.._ ....":'_+1 iSr.'ti %.r r . :',c•X!r••' Y.C• •f � .{.a ...�J. L.y'.-•- 'a!4:,.. r..6:4; pi` ---,•!•-,-.1.c-••%•;•,"?.. • • k 'f -' ..''.• 7.+' rrr•,. I L. _. _.• •-!'„ • • r • ', • •• ,•r. . 0. tio -' r -• - —".1.-1...“ • +ir .r cf'•. •^. rte'• '. -..,':r • t 1•b • .,f •_3 w� iktilAill.i..nr: .. Major Street Borth -South Vehicle: Volumes -and3Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement T R U L T R U L T F. LI R la III. Priority 7 8 9 iu 1.1111 4U 4 5 6 la 10 11II I 1111 Number of Lanes 0 IIIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0111inIli Configuration1111 ) Volume (veh/hIola a 1111 LRMIN TR1111 isimm i T 0 5 270 15 390 IIII 1III Percent Hearty VehiclesMN Proportion Time BlockedMI 20 2011.1 20 limn m . mimiiii. im im mill Right Turn Chartnelized No No o o Median Type undivided Median Storage ,.Delay, _ ueUe Lehgt - and Le_ v►el of Service Flow Rate (veh )MI 16 I. 1111 Ills 60 Imiiiii CapacityIIII la mil 592 MI 1111 1168 MIN vi£ Ratiola an 11111ill 0.10 1111 lill IN 0.01 Ilia 95% Queue Lengthlin 03Mill. 11111 IIII a 0.0 1111 Control Delay (s eh)MI Level of Service (LOS1111 11.8 IIIIM 1111 8.1 lel MI lin MO$ Ma 1111 A Illia Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.8 0,3 Approach LOS B Copyright 0 2.017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101IN T SC Version 5.50 General- ti General Information HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Intersection Summary Information ;�-' 'r`4 }:.:-4i Agency Duration, h 0.25 _' Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 13, 2016 Area Type Other L. Jurisdiction Time Period PHF 0.92 - c - Urban Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 intersection - 257 File Name , ti I, Project Description AM PM EX SST LT l Demand Information EB WB NB _r_tistifitier SB Approach Movement L R TRIIIIIIMR L T R Demand ( v), veh'h 10 280 180 85 515 5 415 fl .,.,�a._ 30 ,_ f 5 10 Signal information �.'' [. . _:.._- - _______,. : . _ Cycle, s Reference Phase I - ,. _ _.:::: _ Offset, s 0 Reference Point Er �` 1 : SF,:.•~ �: ..{ _• - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . ,- . . . a 0.0 .'� Uncoordinated ..� Yes Simult, Gap ENV On Yellow 1/x.1.0 0.0 0. �0 0.�/'�] lao -- -0.0...._ .- _ - - _T - .__ ::$ Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 :.-5 'K . 6 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 1 6 4 8 Case Phase Number Durations 1.1 5.8 3.0 21.8 8,0 4.0 24.8 19.0 2.0 4.0 27.1 0.8 8.1 Change Perot, ( Y+R c ), s • 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5,0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Green Phase Extension Call Probability Time ( g a ), S 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0,00 0.0 0.00 Me 0M 0.00 Max Movement Out Probability Group Results 0,00 EB 0.00 0.00 _ WB 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 EMI NB. SB 0.00 Approach Movement Ea T R T RIMIT RIME T R Assigned Movement Mena 1 8 16 iggi 4 14Min 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mill 0 0 11111 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 :ME 0 0 0 0 IIIII Queue Service Time ( g s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ell 0.0 0.0 gum 0.0 0.0 gum Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g t ), s 0.0 0.0 P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IIII 0.0 0.0 Green Ratio (gIC) 0.30 0.29 ; 0.55 0.36 0.34 0.78 0.38 0.05 0.05 Capacity ( c ) veh/h 178 541 886 409 639 ME 470 630 100 91 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio ( 0 0.061 0.563 0.110 0.220 0.885 Ell 0.959 0,000 0.027 0.180 Back of Queue ( Q), ft/In (50th percentile) 63.6 10.2 17.1 119.5 aill 232.7 6.7 5.2 ME Back Queue of Queue Storage ( Q ), vehlin Ratio ( RQ (50 th ) (50 th percentile) percentile) 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.7 4.8 0.00 a 9.3 IIIIII 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.1 ME 0.00 0.2 0.00 iss Uniform Delay ( d 1), sfveh 16.0 14.8 6.2 13.0 14.5 21.1 11.3 26.0 261 Incremental Delay ( d 2), slveh 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 Mg 31.0 0.0 MI 0.0 0.3 11111 initial Control Queue Delay Delay ( d), ( d a ), s/veh s/veh 16.1 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 6.2 13.1 0.0 0.0 15.3 In 0.0 52.0 0.0 Ens gm 0.0 26.0 0.0 26.5 fl Level of Service (LOS) B. B A BB D B 11111 C C NM Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 13.1 B 15.9 B 48.9 0 26.3 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results s/veh I LOS 25,5 ES WB NB C SB Pedestrian LOS Score I LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS Copyright 0 2017 University of Florida, All Fights Reserved. HCS 2010 TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/12/2017 2:35:36 PM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information 0; Ac°,: c'is' lau Agency � Y Guratl�nr h 0.25 4 . , Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 13, 2016 Area Type Other r .. Jurisdiction IIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMI Time Period IIIIIIIIM PHF 0.92 - Urban Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 14 - 25 File Name 1 . ti Project Description AM P ai LT r'L-- tl, it Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R MEM R L Iii S Ma= R Demand ( v), vehlh 15 530 355 50 340 EMI 240 Ila 75 5 10 Signal Information Cycle, s 56.0 Reference Phase 2 _ .. -:., .•'. • . Offset, s 0 Reference Point End ._ .. _ - Green 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 - , . . . `. a . _ Uncoordinated - Simult, Gap E/\ On Yellow 0.0 0.0 I • • . : 0.0 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 . . . ,.1 . Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap /S On Red 0.0 0.0 { .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I - r ,& Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT 881. SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 4 8 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1,1 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.3 Phase Duration, s 6.1 25.2 7.9 26.9 13.0 23.0 9.1 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 ME 5,0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NM 0.0 Queue Clearance Time (g s), ), s 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 NM 0.0 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Mill 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L R L T S L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 5 16 rim 4 14 a 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), vehlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIM 0 0 1111 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ME Queue Service Time ( g s)r s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g a ), S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II. 0.0 0.0 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.38 0,66 0.54 0.41 0.39 0.71 0.32 0.07 0.07 aggi Capacity ( c ), veh/h 395 671 864 273 727 320 MI 226 124 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.041 0.859 0.446 0,190 0.516 Ell 0.816 0.167 0.024 0.132 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft In (60th percentile) 2.6 111.3 50.1 8.4 55.3 82 17.4 a 1.6 4.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), vehlln (50th percentile) 0.1 4.4 2.0 0.3 2.2 Ma in 0.7 111.1 0.1 0.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) (60 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), 5/veil 11.4 13.3 7.9 12,0 10.0 Ea 22.2 13.7 24.2 24.3 all Incremental Delay ( d 2), slveh 110 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 am 3.6 0A 0.0 0.2 MIN Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), sfveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ME Control Delay ( d), slveh 11.4 14.6 8.0 12.4 10.2 um 25.8 13.7 24.2 24.5 Mil Level of Service (LOS) BB A BB B — c gm Approach Delay, slveh I LOS 12.0 B 10.5 B 22.8 C 24.4 C Intersection Delay, siveh / LOS 13.9 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, Alt Rights Reserved. HCS 20101m Streets Version 6.20 Generated: 7/12/2017 2:38:48 PM APPENDIX 0 _ _ ____ , ,.. ..,.. HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control -- A`..'.'!' -Y ;a •- r,.f{„ •. •. t" n 41.- -F" a . - +a - °_ 4 •: r - '_ "_ - ... _ • .e. • ••. •J'�,,.,'.. t_ '} _- P. --- -• •• - !P'•f'•1.•F7'F•}�. •~.t �ae' r_ -+■i3 vi .i P• � .)a. a• -I .r' - • f•• - s uenera •Iinorma •Analyst __ __ __. Summary Report, _ .• _ - •-vim• • - s - -•• - +• e EM - * - f• .- •.. j.{-. i E-. Site Ih Intersection 257 ^ 803 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed izintrii AM -' M Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-SouthW Analysis Time Period (hrs) Oa25 Project Description • • - _. '. itteilge,-- I ',.. . • = . - e ERra: •r rdi; •I a.i ... 7 ��}� . 4 !{tR'Ih:f.ri: •,f i•ce.-- T • . T F•. r �I.. Vitt..:1..;...:%i r•, a.. • y. .. . t . c.4C/41.,...:C.: t: + _I. •'+'•4 ,- is 4+• •++j`...1: ;f.••i'. 1 �•:;I.....Ja .�' ---'-.--•.:�n,•:16i.4:26 6* }.n: j+. �f•'-i. '1•�,• •.f••f�S �`-.-'.-.r J yY• e•••.1.., -...L 11: • -F -F41":• Sri. ti `Y I,_ -.-t� lam :�1,-...1..•-•".7.-Li •R•y �� r 1 ;.,; i-��•4l �liiY Mir i.V::. .e•i.-`•I•..,.. :+Sf�':....+•}ty(=L }.. •r ••4 :......cot f•. i >-=',.•--+r_ -1-:'-/..• •. ':. •••••••ft-*.•, ..n •r...':I } �,::1•9,1-t./.-,..:74.1".r.)-it••�y�-.•.� • ♦ 1),,,,, `•M'•J•. j'---., R; t•�:- .-..'4-- - •r._.!:%.-.. 5t _1f r. j. �•'• •.70 .;-j- .�-.; :r+1_.: 5" . •a_.• ? ' -•.t 1.:-S .l4 f.+!. ,. l:': ...-a . tiV di .. •-_ •-7'• iCi.2.•1-a: - 1 ,_ 4 .•i=ti/.... 1;•• f JJ• F r -. •4 i ;- c _ •� ••• •I. -/ -w,• r.y .-I .fir--?i ."•'_ =-1;•a •�14're. •+b.;'- 1.-* s_t}t. 3. 'l•. •. 1 ... -t-,..,.. ,t'•. J :1 i••.. ..'�y +�•, i-f5 i ic.:4 x,,31$3 c4' 3� 1J [at ^',_- - 1.:1: L.•. :f.:14 ..4-.'-�. \. J4; t• •...tit ti. -`S-:•.,:.,..:-.4.• -- -;.- ,C'..- .. �� : �~• :.! '..t . Y 4l+'v1•' ..� - -a .S i'�'La+<.+. l.. � i'`...•....:4,,,, 1 ..ti f l- � �:.Q-• •,• r� ..-•-mil .' • .-' •! ,I •.r. -1 •.'•1'r.'.- _.•. .. _ ..•-^. 2`1•-4. ...,_'� �k.1� Major Street North -South Vehicle Volumesi. and Adjustments • Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound T Movement IDIOM R U1111 T R U111. T R U L1111 R Priority 10 lia 12 11111 8 1 2iii 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes Mill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 o111111111 .1111 ConfigurationIIIIIIM 111111111111 LR lilt ininiiiii TR iiiiiiiiii a. Volume (veh/h) 40al iiiiiMli. 615 20 ,iiiinia:Imi Percent Heavy Vehicles1111 20 201111111 al 1111 20 IIMM Proportion Time Blocked111111111111 . Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage - r - • - .. Delay, , �, . &ie a ter, arid•' Level of Service . Flow Rate (veh/h)1111111.111111 11111111 59 60 .a Mil CapacityNI III 1311111111111111111 Ili! 1.11.1 1111 el 826 MEI v/c Ratio11.1 LIII 8P07 IIIIIIIIIIIIIN 0.191111111111.11. 95% queue Length MI 0.7al 1111 11. IIII 0,2. MI NM= limn= Control Delay (s eh) all 1.11111 191 9.7as Level of Service (LOS)all A1111 ill Approach Delay (s eh) 19.1 1.4 Approach LOS C HCS 2010 Two General- lnhorn at on -Way Stop Control Summary Report - Site Information • _ - Analyst Intersection 257 - 80.5 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 a. North/South Street 257 ,- Time Analyzed EX ST LT AM PM Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis lime Period (hrs) 0.25 , Project Description • 4 Lanes -.H k •�• 'fit "::-.4-:•s v �=i • ., :_? it i.i.,r` `„ + .., i • :A11/2ie 5.. I,.' "'4 .► -.;;;",• .•.:•.. •J•:,.l r( -�w !11. •-. t.,.1,- :• F7E:gip' `,r0'' .4., 4. .' -.-}T t"r.`.•_ :•t17.',:,.�y Vii. r- a"Jy :,Cf•Jrj +ad 7:. ('' ,'-,7,1.1'.....• .•iy �.L S`y.ti.r..:r �.�k.- T•.: •,�.-,4j :S. .Ij� - et," '';:. tf:f ..i:. •• J .'-� T•.. -•:':._.`r_'• .•:-i. -.Y.;q.' F . . nn -.. - #:.�7i' •.:'..-1-':"..'' .'i'".'";.% ,. '.•.' .'-: ~ Iry t."' .r: r. 'i i.7: s :~: K..$. ?- r .ti`i �1 a i ..,A �,..z..,.;0)4:-.1Z.:74.76\ ••.... “.."-%•- 7 J, •.- :,..7. � :. ��f` j • •:";", `t".•'t1 �_+.-'.'.lti_' ... !a-�.Z'.:-'.1','\;k.�-.1 �It't-r'- 1 •G..cr d .1.':`rn-rr+r..,-:±Ze'... 6:,ham••J f.+.+'•^. .. z•.w.~•'[:r .•-•7_. MY.:"' L • c.; ....Jr.'''.' '-,f ;•: • -1...>.::i X' 4fin y. S ��1FL t[" - fir .•. ; ,1•. !r •�S1 �•-"%'.L •a-.�,:��`f ( 4� + �y .. a'•.7Tiii.r'T.1y'}'f-J+/1.-1.ylrr:s...e40.'"`.!i'!/.'4•.fi•r •5.1./AO :`r(b It b y_ • .•(yam -',z . _. - .t, . -' � - ,. ,.i .: �. • 'J �'�-•• Jr}: �~ ter. i': _ r . •P- • `'-•"•"'••,� ` - .: . .ti;:- . ;? :• br •..•'sgilailla ip at;• i h � � Major Street North -South • =� Vehicle Volumes andadjusttents Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement Li L T RIIIIIIIIIII I R Uiiiiiii R Ualio Priority 10 Inn III Ell ° 8 9 1U aimmimmi 4U 4111111 6 6 Number of Lanes 1111 0 0 0 0 a0 :0 0 0 0lin 0 0 1111 11111111 ConfigurationM unii. . IliTR T Volume (veh/h) e 395 10 20 570 MEI 15 50 mil Percent Heavy VehiclesMIN 61.. IIII 20 20 la 20 LIM Proportion Time BlockedIIII 1111 1111 Right Turn Channelized No No Nc No Median Type YP I Undivided Median Storage ,. Delay, Queue Length, and Level of • ervice Flow Rate (veh/h) imi 70 Ill , Capacity ME.1031 1.1 v/c Ratioall 11111111 0.17 IIIIIIIII 0.02 95°l Queue Length MI III 0,611111 1111 0.1 Control Delay (s}veh)is ilmi ea 8.6 Level of Service (LOS)ail am A imi 15.3 03 Approach Delay (s eh)IIIIIIIIIIIMI Approach LOS C HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results - -- Summary --- -- ---- General Information Intersection Information Li 4 Q4.-irq-` ' Agency Duration, h 1x.25 �' - -•-t- _ Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 137 2016'--- tj Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PHF 0.92 T Urban Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 } -; .. Intersection 1- 257 File Name `l' _ . 11 Project Demand Description Information AM PM EX ST EB \i'VB NB its; L, SB .t-tr ri _ Approach Movement L T R T R L R L T R Demand ( v), vehlh 10 380 250 700 5 600 - 45 �. 5 5 15 irral Information _ - r,:..-- , - --: - Cycle, s 68.8 Deference Phase •,: ,+• .. LL s -•.',Ofset, Reference Point End r ;.. 0.9 3.8 26_5 14.5 4,0 0.0 - ..- ::... _ •�. 1 t- "~;1.• _ . Uncoordinated Force Mode Fixed Yes Simult. Simult. Gap Gap Env On N/ On Yellow Red 4.0 1.0 0,0 0,0 4.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 -_-.i. 5 r- ,. -- . : a - :- Timer Results EEL EBT VVBL ' BT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 - 6 7 4 8 Case Number 1.1 3,0 1.1 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.3 Phase Duration, s 5.9 31.5 9.7 35.3 18_5 i 9.0 Change Period, ( Y -FR c), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MALI), s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.3 Queue Clearance Time ( gs), s 2.2 12.5 5.0 27.9 14.4 3.6 `` 2.9 Green Extension Time ( g e )7 s 0.0 2.5 0.1 2A 0.2 0.1 0.1 Phase Call Probability 0.10 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.79 Max Movement Out Probability Group Results 0.00 EB 0,00 0.00 WB 0.02 1.00 NB 0.00 SB 0.00 Approach Movement T R L T R L T RIMIIIIIII R Assigned Movement 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 a a 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 11 413 54 136 766 652 54 1.1 22 MIE 1863 1610 1310 1860 1757 1635 MEI Ea 1674 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), vehfh/ln 1810 Queue Service Time ( gs), s 0.2 10,5 1.0 3.0 25.9 12.4 1.6 0.3 .. R 0.9 IIII Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g a), s 0.2 10.5 1.0 3,0 25.9 12.4 1.6 0.3 0,9 EN Green Ratio ( g/C) 0.40 0.39 0.60 0.47 0.44 0.65 0.33 0.06 1 0.06 Capacity ( a ), vehlh 155 719 962 449 821 743 sia 183 ; 96 la Volume-tc Capacity Ratio 0.575 - 0.056 0.302 0.933 0.877 0.102 0.030 0.226 (X)._ 0.070 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/In (50 th percentile) 2.3 85.7 6.1 25.4 193.4 147.1 13.9 2,1 8.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In (50th percentile) 0.1 3.4 0.2 1.0 7.7 5.9 0.6 0.1 0.3 - - - Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) (50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 j. 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), slveh 16.8 i 12.8 5.8 11.7 nil 26.3 16.1 30.74 31.0 Incremental Delay ( d 2 )r s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 7.8 MN 10,0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3), slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), sAveh 16.8 5.8 11.8 Enimm 36.8 16.2 30.7 31,4 Level of Service (LOS) B B A Biel D B C till Approach Delay, s/veh I LOB 12.3 B 19,7 B 35.3 D 31.3 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results sfveh / LOS 23.4 EB 'U NB C SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOB lila Bicycle LOB Score / LOS Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101M Streets Version 6,80 Generated: 71/2/2017 1:12:26 PM General Information HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Intersection Summary Information :TAI '+ 1,4 .14,1 a Agency Duration, h 0.25 4L Analyst GO Analysis Date Nov 13 2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PHF 0.92 : - - ' - Urban I Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 - Intersection 14 - 257 File Name Project Description AM FM EX .� LT nit r-tY_tr. I Demand Information EB \ B NB SB Approach Movement L ' T R T R L T R L T R Demand Signal Information ( v), veh/h 15 : 530 355 50 34O 240 laillEM T male ,�..•�_�, . 1 - a Cycle, s 48.0 Reference Phase ! = ;- - t Offset, s 0 Reference Point End .. �`- Green 10.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.r :� -. . .,. , . Uncoordinated Yes -- - Simult. Gap EM! On Yellow 10.0 � 0.0 C�.O 0.0 � a.t� �.(� �� s6 -�� ;. :: .� • � 4 �}J _ Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i .'�' ... Timer Results EBL EBT WBL VVBT NBL NBT SBL ...._,..pa. SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 6 7 4 8 Case Number 1.1 3,0 4.0 1.0 4.0 6.3 Phase Duration, s 0.0 22.3 7,6 23.9 9.2 18,1 8,8 - Change Period, ( 'OR c ), 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), a 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ 0.0 Phase Call Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Max Movement Out Probability Group Results 0.00 EB 0,00 0.00 'R 0.00 B 0.00 NB 0.00 SB 0.00 Approach Movement L T- L T R T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2NEN e 6 16 4 14 3 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), vehill/In 0 0 0 . 0 0 O 0 O 0 Queue Service Time ( g s), s 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g c), s 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 _ Green Ratio ( glC ) 0.38 036 0.47 0,42 0.39 0.23 0.27 0.08 0.08 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 416 673 312 733 Mil 887 443 256 136 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio ( ) 0.039 0.857 0.222 0.174 0.512 0.294 0.196 MIE 0.021 0.120 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln (50 th percentile) 2 87.8 17.7 6.4 42.4 MI 25.2 15.4 MN 1.3 3.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), vehlin (50 th percentile) 0.1 3.5 0.7 0.3 1.7 1.0 0.6 MO 0.1 0.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( FAQ ) (5O th percentile) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 all 0.00 000 a 0,00 0.00 Uniforni Delay ( d 1), slveh 0.7 11.4 7.5 10,4 8.4 15.4 13.4 IIIII 20.4 20.5 Incremental Delany ( d 2), sfveh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), sfveh _ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _0.0_ 0.0 0.0 Co ntrol D elay ( d ), s/veh 9.7 12.0 7.6 10.5 8.6 15.5 13,5 20.4 20.7 Level of Service (LOS) A B A B A B B C C 1111 Approach Delay, siveh' LOS 11.4 B 0.0 I A 15.0 B 20.6 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results slveh / LOS --- EB 11.6 WB NB B -- SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Mil =111111 Bicycle LOS Score 1 LOS Copyright C 2017 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved, HCS 2010Thi Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/12/2017 1:05:39 PM FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR SEVERANCE READY MIX AND ASPHALT PLANTS SITE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Simon Contractors Company 1103 Old Town Lane, Suite 201A Cheyenne, WY 82009 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-E Longmont, CO 80501 Tetra Tech Job No. 133-01756-17001 December 2017 TETRA TECH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 2 1 Location and Existing Conditions 1 2.2 Proposed Development 1 3.0 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 2 4.0 DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUBBASINS 3 4.1 Major Basin Description 3 4.2 Historic Drainage Patterns 3 4.3 Offsite Drainage Patterns 4 5.0 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4 5.1 General Concept 4 5.2 Onsite Drainage 5 5.3 Offsite Drainage 5 5.4 Water Quality and Detention 6 5.5 Drainage Infrastructure Maintenance 7 6.0 CONCLUSION 8 7.0 REFERENCES Final Drainage Report i December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\,01756'133.01756-17001\.Docs\Reports Drainage Report\Drainage Rep ort_Simon.docx List of Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix A-1 Appendix A-2 Appendix A-3 Appendix A-4 Appendix A-5 Appendix B Site Data Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2 Appendix B-3 Appendix B-4 Appendix B-5 Appendix B-6 Vicinity Map Historic Drainage Plan Offsite Drainage Plan Developed Drainage Plan Drawings FEMA FIRM. Map NRCS Site Soil Survey Report NOAA Site Rainfall Data Historic Runoff Calculations Offsite Runoff Calculations Developed Runoff Calculations Appendix C Hydraulic Calculations Appendix C-1 Appendix C-2 Appendix C-3 Appendix C-4. Pipe and Culvert Sizing Calculations Drainage Channel Sizing Calculations Drainage Calculations Detention Pond Design Appendix D Supporting Correspondence Appendix D-1 Appendix D-2 Appendix D-3 Cactus Hill Ranch Company Acceptance of Runoff Colorado Division of Water Resources Concurrence Letter Lined Pond Design Letter Final Drainage Report Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants December 2017 P:\01.756\133-01756-17001 \Does\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present the proposed storm drainage improvements at Simon Contractors Company's Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site. With the development of a site, one can expect an increase in impervious cover and, therefore, an increase in peak stormwater runoff. This report examines the undeveloped flow patterns of offsite and onsite drainage basins and the proposed stormwater facilities designed to mitigate the downstream impact of increased stormwater runoff. The contents of this report are prepared, at a minimum, in accordance with the Weld County Code for a Final Drainage Report. 2.0 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Existing Conditions The Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site is located on a 30.8 +/- acre parcel located on Weld County Road (WCR) 80.5 on the east side of State Highway 257, approximately one-half mile south of State Highway 14 in Weld County. More specifically, the site is located in the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in Weld County. A vicinity map is provided in Appendix A -I. The site is used for agricultural purposes and is owned by Cactus Hill Ranch Company and is leased by Simon Contractors Company,. The facility was granted a Use by Right for a temporary asphalt plant associated with a specific CLOT project. The proposed facility includes permanent asphalt and ready -mix concrete plants and has been designed to accommodate truck traffic as well as material stockpiles. Drainage within the proposed development currently sheet -flows to the south across the agricultural field. Runoff from the site drains into multiple drainage culverts that discharge into the Larimer County Canal, located to the south of the site. The historic drainage plan for the site is attached to this report as Appendix A-2. A private irrigation lateral that serves the property also runs around the perimeter of the site. Prior to canal construction., runoff from the contributing drainage basin flowed south across the land currently owned by the Cactus Hill Ranch Company. As discussed in subsequent sections, the site runoff will be discharged onto Cactus Hill Ranch Company property instead of the Larimer County Canal. 2.2 Proposed Development Improvements to the site include development of a location for an asphalt plant, a ready -mix concrete plant, a crusher, an office and shop, equipment storage, and truck parking areas. The entirety of the site improvements are located within the area occupied by the Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site. As requested by the Water Storage and Supply Company (WSSC), runoff from the site is not desired within the Larimer County Canal. To accommodate this request, the proposed runoff will be conveyed to the south of the Larimer County Canal via inverted siphons. Drainage ditches and culverts onsite are designed to convey and direct offsite flows around the site perimeter. Site detention ponds were sized to accommodate 100 -year runoff volumes from the newly Final Drainage Report 1 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx developed drainage sub -basins. Because the site is located in an urbanizing area, stormwater discharge from the detention ponds have been designed to not exceed the 5 -year historic runoff rate. The release rate from the detention ponds will be achieved by the use of an inverted siphon ith flow restriction so that the combined release rates from the detention ponds do not exceed the 5 -year historic runoff rate. Flow restriction will be accomplished using a slide gate, which can be throttled to the desired historic rate. The detention ponds will discharge to the Cactus Hill Ranch Company located on the south side of the Larimer County Canal.A letter from the Cactus Hill Ranch Company accepting the runoff is presented in Appendix D-1. The proposed detention ponds will comply with the following criteria: 1. Runoff must be sampled, tested and reported in compliance with CDPIE stormwater permit requirements. 2. Runoff will be released in a location to restore the historic flow patterns that existed prior to the construction of the Larimer County Canal. 3. Runoff for the 100 -year storm will be released at the 5 -year pre -project rate. 4. The detention ponds will be lined with a compacted clay liner that meets Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) seepage rate standards. The criteria described above were developed to address concerns that were submitted by neighbors, including the WSSC. Concurrence by the DWR with the proposed design concept is presented Appendix D-2. Detention ponds have been sized to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard for the 100 -year storm. Detention ponds will also detain the required water quality capture volume (WQCV) for the site. Flow from the western portion of the site will drain into Detention Pond A on the south side of the site. Flow from the eastern portion of the site will drain into Detention Pond B on the southeast side of the site. The offsite drainage plan and developed drainage plan are attached to this report as Appendix A-3 and Appendix A-4, respectively. 3.0 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA This report is prepared in compliance with the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, volumes 1, 2, and 3; Weld County Code; and the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 1, 2, and 3. lased on these references, a 100 -year storm is used as the major storm event when evaluating existing and proposed drainage facilities. Runoff Calculations: Because each drainage basin in this analysis is less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used in stormwater runoff calculations. The time of concentration for the basins was estimated using the methods detailed within Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, volume 1, Ch. 6. Rainfall Data: Site rainfall depth information was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14, volume 8, version 2, Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the United States (2013). Current NOAA data was used for the determination of point rainfall data. The NOAA data formed the basis of the inflow -duration -frequency (IDF) calculations for other Final Drainage Report 2 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx storm frequencies and durations using Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) methods, Rainfall data is presented in Appendix B-3. Culvert Sizing: Culverts onsite have been evaluated using Manning's Equation. Culverts have been designed to convey the 100 -year storm event. Culvert sizes were determined using CulvertMaster software. Culvert sizing calculations are provided in Appendix C-1. Drainage Channel Sizing: Offsite drainage channels are proposed along the perimeter of the proposed development. These channels have been sized for the 100 -year storm event using Manning's Equation. Detailed channel calculations are provided in Appendix C-2. Turf Reinforcement Mat (TR.M) or Erosion Control Blanket (ECB) is recommended in all vegetated drainage channels. ROLLMAX VMax SC250 TRM, or approved equal, and North American Green RollMax S150 ECB, or approved equal, is recommended. Riprap will be placed at all culvert outfalls, and has been sized according to the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual, Volume 2. A drainage calculation summary describing drainage channel and culvert properties and rip -rap calculations is provided in Appendix C--. Detention Pond Sizing: The detention pond volumes have been determined using the UDFCD's Detention Design — UD-Detention v3..07 spreadsheet. Water Quality Pond Sizing: Water quality ponds are required prior to releasing stormwater runoff from the development. Water that is stored will be tested, analyzed, and reported in accordance to the CDPH.E stormwater permit. Water will be drained using inverted siphons under the Larimer County Canal. The inverted siphons will have a gate to the detention pond from draining before the water quality is inspected. 4.0 DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUBBASINS 4.1 Major Basin Description The proposed property is located in rural Weld County and is surrounded by agricultural land. There are a few individual residences in the vicinity. The project site lies in a FEIVIA designated area, zone A: "no base flood elevations determined." The Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site is located in Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel No. 08123 C1185E, attached to this report as Appendix B-1. According to the Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part, site soils are primarily Kim loam and Thedalund loam, ranging in slope from approximately 1 to 5 percent. A detailed soil survey report is provided in Appendix B-2. Soil types within the project site are predominantly hydrologic soil group A and C. 4.2 Historic Drainage Patterns The project site is located within one historic drainage basin, which has been designated as Historic Basin A. Runoff from Historic Basin A flows south to existing irrigational lateral culverts and is discharged into the Larimer County Canal, which flows to Point of Analysis (PGA) A. POA A is located on the southeast side of the site. The areais currently used as farmland and has gentle slopes. Final Drainage Report 3 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx Historic runoff coefficients are calculated for each site soil type using the methods detailed in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, volume 1, Ch. 6. Because the historic drainage basin is less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used to analyze the historic peak flows. The time of concentration for the basin was estimated using methods detailed within Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, volume 1, Ch. 6. Peak flows for the 5 -year and 100 -year storm events for the historic drainage basin are summarized in the table below. Table 1. Historic Peak Flows Basin 1D A Acres 110.97 Peak Flow 5 Year (cfs) 1.70 Peak Flow 100 Year (cfs) 55.08 4.3 Offsite Drainage Patterns Offsite Basins OS -1A and OS -1B are located north of the Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site, and in general drain to the south. Runoff from these basins will be routed around the site development through offsite drainage channels and an entrance culvert and discharged from the site at POA A. Offsite runoff will continue to be discharged into the Larimer County Canal. Peak flows for the 5 -year and 100 -year storm events for the offsite drainage basins are provided in the following table. Table 2. Offsite Peak. Flows Peak Flow Peak Flow 100 Year Corresponding Basin Ili Acres 10 Year (cfs) (cfs) POA OS -1A 32.21 0.21 10.52 A OS -1B 54.02 0.69 24.18 A 5.0 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 5.1 General Concept Upon development of the site, runoff will continue to follow in its historic drainage paths across the site to the south. Onsite runoff will be detained in two clay -lined detention ponds onsite and discharged on the adjacent property located on the south side of the Larimer County Canal. Final Drainage Report 4 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx 5.2 Onsite Drainage Proposed development was divided into two drainage basins. The majority of the site development is located on the west side of the site in Developed Basin 1 and contains the ready mix and asphalt plant, as well as aggregate stockpiles, access roads, and a crusher. Runoff from Developed Basin 1 drains to the south into Detention Pond A. Drainage Basin 2 is located to the east of Developed Basin 1 and contains the office, shop, and areas for equipment storage and truck parking. Runoff from Developed Basin 2 drains to the south into Detention Pond B. Discharge from the detention ponds will drain to the property located on the south side of the Larimer County Canal. The 100 -year combined release from the detention ponds will not exceed the allowable release rate. The allowable release rate is determined by adding the discharge from each detention pond and each offsite drainage channel together and ensuring that the total discharge from the site does not exceed the 5 -year historic rate. The following table provides the peak flow rates for the onsite drainage basins. Table 3. Onsite Drainage Basins Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak 100 Year Corresponding Flow Basin ID Acres 10 Year (cfs) (cfs) POA Basin 1 15.83 10.61 52.22 A Basin 2 8.97 1.95 19.55 A 5.3 Offsite Drainage Offsite Drainage Basins OS -1A and OS -1B are located within Historic Basin A. Flows from OS -1A and OS -1B will be routed around the site by drainage channels to the points where the runoff naturally drains on the south side of the project development, POA A. Offsite Basin OS -1A will drain into Drainage Channel OS -1A located on the north side of the site. Runoff in this channel will flow to the west and then to the south along the west edge of the site. Channel 0S -1A will discharge into the existing irrigation lateral culvert located near the southwest corner of the site. Offsite Basin OS -1B will drain into Drainage Channel 05-1B located on the north side of the site. Runoff in this channel will flow to the east and then to the southeast on the east side of the site. A culvert will be installed at the eastern site entrance, Channel OS -1B will discharge into the existing irrigation lateral culvert located near the southeast corner of the site. The existing irrigation lateral culverts drain into the Larimer County Canal. Final Drainage Report 5 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx 5.4 Water Quality and Detention There are two proposed detention ponds onsite. Detention Pond A is designed to detain the 100 -year developed storm event from Developed Basin 1. Detention Pond B is designed to detain the 100 -year developed storm event from Developed Basin 2. A minimum of one foot of freeboard will be provided for each detention pond for the 100 -year storm event. The required WQCV will be contained within the detention volume for each of the detention ponds. Detention Pond A and Detention Pond B both discharge through inverted siphons to the adjacent property, located on the south side of the Larimer County Canal. The detention ponds are connected by a drainage channel. An emergency discharge pipe is located in the drainage channel that connects Detention Pond A and. Detention Pond B. This emergency discharge pipe conveys flows under the Larimer County Canal and discharges onto the Cactus Hill Ranch Company property. Flows will then follow the historic patterns south. In accordance with the Colorado Discharge Permit System requirements, runoff from the site must be sampled prior to release. To accommodate this requirement, the detention pond outlets will have a slide gate to contain the 100 -year site runoff for sampling in accordance with the CDPHE stormwater permit requirements. Stored runoff will be conveyed via inverted siphons ender the Larimer County Canal and onto Cactus Hill Ranch Company property. Each pond has an 8" diameter inverted siphon with a gate. Each siphon was designed to convey one half of the 5 -year historic flow rate. The flow rate for each siphon is controlled by the slide gate, which can be incrementally opened until the desired flow rate is achieved. Design calculations for each siphon are presented in Appendix C-4. In addition to the storage and conveyance facilities for the 100 -year storm, additional volume has been provided in the ponds for storage of up to the 300 -year storm prior to overflow. An additional 24" inverted siphon is proposed to convey additional runoff, i.e. storm events greater than the 100 -year storm, under the Larimer County Canal to the historic flow path on the Cactus Hill Ranch Company property. A channel connecting the upper elevations of each pond is proposed to convey flow to the 24" siphon. Each detention pond will be lined with compacted clay to reduce infiltration into the subsoil and canal. The compacted clay liner will reduce the seepage rate to be approximately 1.6 x 10-7 curls, which exceeds the CAFO seepage rate standard of 1.0 x 10' cm/s. Erosion control devices will be provided at all culvert and swale outlets to protect against downstream erosion. Detention pond calculations are presented in Appendix C-4. The following table presents a summary of information pertaining to the detention ponds onsite. Final Drainage Report 6 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx Table 4. Detention Pond Summary Pond A Pond B Drainage Area (acres) 15.83 8.97 % Impervious of Drainage Area 32 11 16 14 Time of Concentration (minutes) Total 100 Year, 1 Hour Storm Runoff Volume (ac -fl) 2. 5 �1.f 4 100 Year, 1 Hour Water Surface Elevation (feet) 5181.8 5181.9 Top of Detention Pond Elevation (;feet) 5,183.00 5,183.00 Release Rate from Pond (cfs) 0.40 0.40 Total Storage (ac -ft) 132 1.25 5.5 Drainage Infrastructure Maintenance Satisfactory operation of onsite drainage components requires scheduled maintenance throughout the life of the site. The following are recommendations for maintenance and inspection that are drawn from the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) in Denver, Colorado. • onsite personnel should be tasked with developing a schedule that reminds them to evaluate all drainage components onsite. • Routinely (monthly basis) inspect ditches, ponds, culverts, outlet structures, riprap, etc. to ensure locations are free from debris and excess vegetation. • Ensure riprap, culverts, and outlet structures are not compromised. Repair if needed. • Frequency of inspection may need to be more frequent in the first year or two as the site is established. Facilities should be inspected following any storm event. • When mowing, collect clippings and all other trimmings and take offsite for disposal or dispose with trash onsite; do not leave in the pond or ditch. • Remove vegetation adjacent to outlet works that may interfere with operation; note if noxious weeds are present and notify supervisor to schedule treatment/removal. • During inspection, report damage/compromise to side slopes, pond banks, inlet pipe, trickle channels, outlet structure. Prepare a repair schedule and complete repairs. • It is important to limit use of fertilizers and pesticides in and around the ponds and ditches to minimize entry into pond and subsequent downstream waters. • For detention ponds, every 6 months or so, the accumulated sediment should be removed from the bottom of the outlet structure and the pond depths checked at several points. If the depth of the accumulated sediment is greater than 25 percentof the original design depth, sediment should be removed. Accumulated sediment, over time, will reduce the capacity of the pond and may cause site flooding if not maintained. A typical checklist for operators to use during inspections is as follows: • Has trash accumulated within the ponds and ditches? • Evaluate vegetative cover to ensure it does not compromise ditch or pond area. • Is there evidence of erosion or instability on pond and ditch slopes? • Is there any sedimentation within the pond, in ditches, and in culverts? • Is there any settling and/or cracking in berrned areas? • Are there any upstream or downstream conditions that could impact drainage? Final Drainage Report 7 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101.756\133-01756-17O01\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx Special operations and maintenance requirements for the lined detention ponds are also presented in Appendix D-3. The inverted siphons also require regular maintenance to maintain hydraulic capacity and functionality. It is recommended to inspect the interior condition of the pipe by video on a yearly basis to evaluate the degree of sedimentation. If there is 3 inches or greater of sediment deposition, jetting or flushing is recommended to remove sediment. The inspection frequency may be extended if it is found that little sediment is deposited over time. Depending on the evaluation, discrepancies should be addressed and fixed as soon as possible. Neglecting repairs may compromise drainage through the site. 6.0 CONCLUSION This report was prepared in compliance with the Weld County Code and the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volumes I, 2, and 3. The proposed drainage system for the improvements to the Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site will provide detention for the developed section of the site, releasing flows from the site at the 5 -year historic rate. Releases are as near to the points of design as practical and are not expected to increase adverse impacts on downstream property owners. In addition, the proposed design exceeds the Weld County Code requirements in that is provides detention in excess of the 100 -year event. This Final Drainage Report is being submitted to Weld County for review and approval. Final Drainage Report 8 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx 7.0 REFERENCES Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Weld County, CO, Panel 1185 of 2250, January 2016. United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1-3, March 2017. Weld County Code. Weld County, Colorado, September 6, 2008. Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria. Weld County Public Works Department, April 2012. NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 8, Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce., 2.013. Final Drainage Report 9 December 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17401\Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_Simon.docx APPENDIX A - FIGURES APPENDIX A-1 VICINITY M n I' JUL 10, 2017 P:\01756\133-01756-17001\GISIMXD\CACTUSHILLVICINITYMAP.MXD TETRA TECH www.tetratech.com 1900 S Sunset Street, Ste 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 PHONE. (303) 772-5282 FAX (303) 772-7039 SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC. SEVERANCE READY MIX & ASPHALT PLANTS USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW VICINITY MAP Project No.. 133-01756-17001 Date JUL 10, 2017 Desgned By JJA Figure No. 1 J APPENDIX A-2 HISTORIC DRAINAGE PLAN 12/22/2011 10 47 31 AM • P10175S15}61756-1700I1CADASHEETEREsc*AaNG ORAMAGE?AVS' "ANIONIC DRAINAGE DWG AliaEN KAI KA 11 O r m O m z 0 s R MARA W' E —a 9110N CONINAC ORS COLPANA WE.00OUNTY. CaONADO DESCN+o1ION 1• NOT rCR CON31RtCTION SEVERANCE READY MIX S ASPHALT PLANTS HISTORIC DRAINAGE 7/17717 [m] TETRA TECH a f A COPyort Ire 4c APPENDIX A-3 OFFSITE DRAINAGE PLAN O OWe0.G€>_&%*?Cc S+f [w&w Jr NOTE LEGEND Xli1 1 • 100 Oic91TE BASIN OELIEAT10N6 BAUDON tI,RO$ COCOA DATA MANAGE Flee. DRAINAGE BASIN 90.1413ARY • DiAINAoE FLOW PAtN MED 4•11. AROPtRtY L.* .•,♦ . ANA. VDUS DRAINAGE BASIN NM* 5 YEAR PEA* fl OC)NRQF 100 YEAR PEAK MCNABB( DRAINAGE BASIN ACREAGE TETRA TECH a 6 6 1 4 C LU X $g Q z < eG Q' _ � C we. Zr rc` cn {t b ll N LL 0 Pulled No. 11341 l'56 -1 /00I (_.68v Au Orson By CI No Prow By All 2 Bl' YYF`7A • nc` APPENDIX A-4 DEVELOPED DRAINAGE PLAN 1 7/23/2017 11 31 SEAS P1O17SN13S(M17)S1MOOIICAULS7CE I'ILES0RAON0 OAAiNAOE LANE* CFVE LOPED DRAINAGE OAG *AMEN KATHY u HWY 257 I D' g r m z O OESCNNPI ION W s E I s 2 I S aAaw CONTMCIOA.4 COMPANY wltO COUm. COI.OIM0 ) SEVERANCE READY MIX $ ASPHALT PLANTS DEVELOPED DRAINAGE C • DATE MTh 7 B' NOT FOR CONSTNUC ICON TETRA TECH 'KC SPA^ Snot Streit a 14 r Caren SONO• ' 13-S2t7 re. (30)) 772.7036 Own?. 'NMK for APPENDIX A -S DRAWINGS 7,5 RA. Sr Tr nt A%7: r rS.fTAS N. LEGEND am two ACCESS To BE CLOSED - IAN TED ENTRY SIGN - sr OP AND No RIGHT TURN SKIN OE STOPANO NO RIOH1 URN SIGN //r EXTENDPAVING SO SEYOAO DRIVEWAY OE OE J E)USTIND ACCESS To SECLOSED OE DE //////////////////////////////////////. 1 K TERNATIVE CONCRETE PLANT POND A Ou TFALL LARIMER COLNTY CANAL BA 316 PG 349 BK 1132 REW201A291 OE EXISTING MA.1CG EXISTINOMIPC:+ ...+ EXISTNG SECTION uhE — RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD -+�- PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE — PROPOSED WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE 'S4 BOUNDARY PROINJBED STRUC1uREI EOWPMENT MATERIAL STOCKPILES PROPOSED ASPHALT ROAD EXISTING ASPHAL r ROAD yz SCREENING BERM GRAVEL ROAD GRAVEL ROAD (SMALL VEHICLE TRAFFIC ONLY) DETENTION POND EXIS TINS UTILITY POLE PROPOSED PORTOLEI PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE SECT ION CORNER MARKER PROPOSED GATE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA 4-•41B HAY BALE S00YR OUTE AL POND B 'JUT TALI 1111111111 II!! I 1111111111111111.1111) TRACK a EOL0PMENI PARKING CE'ENTION PJNO B CC DE I 0 Kt IOU 20' SCALE V • 100 TETRA TECH W � Q dg I z Z a g g a a F O Wa W U F. u L WLU to lg — > e0 J §C): C W Q Role[ No 11yCIhy11001 esurw Br RCM vwte0 BY CFO JAB C-100 • Yeas es I ince Coprg19 !eba TIC% 2 3 4 5 s J I i 5200 5195 5190 5185 2 5180 2 V 5175 U) 5170 5165 5160 Li r L LI St 77 LF r STORM LARRTER COUNT/ CANAL I WRAP C50 = r i STRUCTURE SINGLE PIPE HEADWALL FINISH GRACE III PVC 45' SEND 0+00 1+00 PROFILE POND A OUTFALL SCALE HOR12 Iz 20 VERT re 5 5200 5195 5190 O 5185 v N H En 5180 5175 2+00 2+40 5170 POND A OUTFALL NUMBER LENGTH RAMS LWEQIORODRECTION START 7gRTwNO A EASTING END NORTHING & EASTING LI 500000 512 49 TENT N 29569169 E IB6)6/T4 N 1927064O E 10905006 000 • 5185 NOTE 5160 0 IQ 24 4C SCALE I'. 20 I c IE1O SURVEY DATA FROM I2- 4-l1 INOICA TES 'PROXIMATELY 7 6 FEET OF EXISTING ELEVATION DIFFERENCE FROM THE POND INLET LOCATION TO THE ESTIMATED OUTFALL AREA 0 I0 20 40' SCALE r=]0 O I N w 2 _J 5 qm� a LL 2 a U Q U Q1 O. UY. wH * dtea Z o Nx Q CC CL Pommy Nm ILSUIU'b17001 a•vm6M RCM CPA AS C-200 j •SSG PROFILE 500 YR SIPHON OUTFALL eCA4E nOR.z !•t 70 VERT 1•e 5' • • •♦ • • • • • ♦\ • • • SINGLI 41.40 Lf IT IT PVC DOUBLE WALL HEADWALL 0• L0 ROMP COO • 11' OVERFLOW Mo. I•W •5.0 SOF eloPE-),I • 1 f E 9{OiM t•70 NI 2 V 1. OTOOM 11421 If a' SCORIA PONDS OUTFALL NUMeER LENGT.1 RADIUS L0 CVCNORDOR[CTION STAR LAWAC / LAW Pa EAA LAMING G a LAMING U N 17 Nil 413147W 4ZYY N MOM [ tulle IN N 'WOO C5 f n5U5M t) )t/•M ••) 11. eon, )•a01.15 1 maws N fleet N1 f 1501.1! 500 YR Slpnon Outtall WOOER LENGTH RAOLA LIPW OIECTL0N •t MEASTIIT aNO • TA•Taq DC AST* 410 & EASTER:, l4 Z5AW 31r SC 75.1/W Pi HMV MT E IT/A045 N»tI0/T! E •150621• IATILCT OTRIKRMf nI .F M• S•4M .200 5200 5195 5190 tUlLE? STRUCTURE 5185 N uj 5180 .73 a 05175 2+54 5170 5185 5180 )1.51 J 1.4* tHM �OUtL•t RIPRAP ON • V OTOUCTURO POND 8 DUD ALL AL KINMEN1 KC TN SIPHON OUT)ALL KgMIEN! arl it? la NOTE f1ELD$tRVE, DAtA FR04 t .. APPRO%IMATEL+ 1t PF.E 1 ♦M LIVb M1No (AtwA ICN DIFFERENCE fNOM THE POND MBE T IOi.AI u. ESTIMATE DOUTFµL AREA 5200 _ 5201 5195 51914 5190 5190 5195 EQ<3 I 5175 5170 S NOLE PON •TFA011P1t.t RAW OOUBLE VALt EAlet•40 GRADE neaoNMIs - f11L•N GRADE Vac o. 4_: /-rv:X C KW) 4 0 Off Wit I OUTLET STRUCTURE euriN6 ass WAILS IU PVC ICAO 5165 eV Ail • IF LIFO e Arg 5160 0+00 PROFILE POND B OUTFALL 90µE fO$Z 1••M YERT /••5 51 5195 La 5180 U 5175 2+00 2+40 0 !? )0 4O 5170 5160 TETRA TECH • 1 I a I Pls. No 1334'TM•IIWT OaagHaa h RW Orson 1p DPW Ora)det AM C-201 Ow Maaoaaa 1 roc D I 3 I A S • SEE NOTE 7 I I. F POMO LIVER 1 FOOT TROT COMPACTED CLAY L4ER Zr M Iv PLAN VIEW I 'a PROFILE VIEW L II !Tf NOTE • E Ir DETENTION PONDS SECTION HIS Ird WSTAu 7A' *AMU IF INSTALL S' MEACOATE FRONT VIEW DOUBLE PIPE HEADWALL I 4 r NOTES: NTPNO MATE EAR TWO CONTORT. 7 I PCAO A BOTTOM WOM •/F1 Nome S BOTTOM YSOTH. a6 t 2 POW A TOP AWTM• CO ET POW S TOP VAOTH. 5OOn l I • 1 PLAN VIEW C�re r 7.7 5.13 - PROFILE VIEW FRONT VIEW SINGLE PIPE HEADWALL SCALE WC • IC M h GENERAL NOTES: I I ART Tit N L NCR MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPACTED NATIVE CLAY *OA TO SE BURRPNEO FROM THE STOCKPILE ON CACTUS NAIL RAND. INIORER Tv 2 SSCRACTE PREPARATON SCARIFY TO SCRS IMO) AM, RE -COMPACT SIAORAOE BEFORE LITER MATERIAL MGTALIAMII I EARTHEN LINER MATERIAL' S•+OLA.O BE COLS;CEO TO ONE (I) FOCI TNCX ON SOTTCM AW SOEAwLL6 TIE Loa sato dE CONStac1E0 W Sow TO +6461 LOOSE LIFTS AND THEN COMPACTED COMPACTED LIES flu. MOT EXCEED 81i OR WOES A COMPACT S<BGRADE Sc SOEWAUS BELOW CLAY L/ER W TEIaAL TO eE6%OF STAAOAAD DRY DENSITY AT .7a TO .3% Of CPIIIRAI EIOIS*URE PER ABTA OBY ! COMPACT CLAY LINER IM TERw. TD a M% Cr STANDARD DRY WARTY TY AT 2% TO •TL OF OPTIMW MOASTLRE PER MM ow a OIAMAAFI MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE lSED W ANY OF THE RECOMPAC TED WTERAL / L:WRIXM TT YNIII ENGINEER P OR DE MB IY IEBTWU CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE NMGUR NOTICE PRIOR TO DENSITY TESTING F I.NA/HEER S REPRESENTATIVE TS TO BE ONSTUPOR CONSTRUC DON. Oita WAY ION CuRINO CONSTRUCTION V MUST UNE DENSITY TESTING SMALL BE A MIMMUM Of TWELVE 1171 NANDOM OR SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE COMPACTEO IMOLAFOIENT BOT TOMS AND ONE (I) TEST PER TOO L INEIAR FEET OF COMPACT CO WOE WALLS ["it] TETRA TECH fa a S E Ir I P I ro a I I+RYct NY IS)01?SIMI ^+SERE By RCM , Sl .:4408% ri L C-500 APPENDIX B - SITE DATA APPENDIX B-1 FEMA FIRM MAP NOTES TO USERS TM .lap v b W• AOSSISM we MOSS 1a. wawa linter L aces M .aa4aA ear 4 Inn 4400 a r•eIV p Rai Ire Oft camp aI. s •I won .✓• "- ere nsolla Sop area M Y.o.a In .•^"•••J 4 PAM id.Nd Jo warm Mae I -•t -U IAomlOpn in care alto dated anestcn w saes ate ate Mod Header ;atom' wee AtIteal Pa In, osernad ars so eKcoare 1G nom Ma Rood Pion• ro f seen CW awvl Mann dl .%MSS Dalai a le• marled wr•h IM red 'atone tone 43uor • r13) Awwl loon attune+. On FIRM Urea atm De ante n• Ire E• noon on I. FMI Mp lmad tounoW +MdeMdr e..a 1. these OFE. a. anted a Dada wrlw nave *spas Only SO ✓...a na Le aria w .w ... M MM area .dd.nrcn Maltay ✓ dq: reewar. are Marred I. We PM Ryan shoed o Sands ran•asco nom. IM I RU h. NGOW d CO .l,aan ono Mdd(arl anagn .. n Coal Ma plaaa tM•aape Mown on In MAD rM. WI Ueda*, M 00 Ndat fan. st'. hewn ell ter It4.IU MI an d Wt FIRM told r sea Ml 1a 5S 1..4 ae.Slwr w S poet. in We 4unwaN d Oreaa Owrt.• Wa floral ral V*An Y.ap Radl a in pane L. .M.L YOM. n de laa•nn 0 an.na Knee Oa Nicer 01 Irate COMOsoYYI ars Ma.n••n animal. soma• Ines ref so ars an M Noonan Yen in Para, Maas M a Aaean.e waste • as se w Sawa MwMlw Gran rw.n Ti. emaeen, ma. ee.ee Y. Iu esaa ml.aaerel.t ea. — N Nq.•aene a es ..rent I mad .ISIty rare Fenn, S as ea Mlrr. RAM MOW •e robe • Ise F_f aged Star ea le Ms err•' ss.n nee tin Span Gross one w tan M re sane te a.ad ass Malta Rees Y Sane : • eetd P-a.dal Meaor' Ire rood aorta Sady Aye S raneanw ea ars O.n.o. a In rasdoa• To ancalto sea N M retains a ✓M sap wait Unwire* iTMr -. (UTMI toms 11 The aarledaJ dam •S NM) ID CRS 'NC aeon MM411r• w Aar Maud pr aunton a UTO law urn a rw 010010001 DIMS a Opal oe00a. many 'awn m. aft oa cr'e OM Mpr• n RIM WWI Era rraanan bosdsw in•.. •dwwbs w not Ibd Manal d ena WM 1IS save an his lisp r• '.Iwtcal be M ha Am•..CM. Vestal ()Stn d !Ms Ire tips slate noel to C.tasl.d .n Wucbrs and Jan ens* Islawaale to Ihe as vna.Ce Ins ra a amern faieng tarsus Inn.en M ...are Goan ~ma Dawn ul 11 1 and a NPR Anton a'ra Usher le lase S M N•cn.I Gar Sao.. a.rw • Iar.:YLe.'M.Iriaan w tartan M Non (i 5 !..rat • M a•••••`a aUctnn Oster Nmr.rp Sr neat %CAA News% all Caada flee t SSMC -S ands '3's Least owner Sea Sam Waal tlaro1:IG 001 1'3174: at dam. oven • a.. las — sae ante a tea ma Nov. on en ao parse -a-? P. nor m n Se -n. Sire d we acne Gana S.rar • Mil r1} sacs art et soca • mows s s. Oa se .Sawesa .non a. tin FIRM wr-ad w. NAP - rw .00ptSt po is a • re soma 'pa 10 ease fron eassee s! :CI 3 The Mar l.nalal•• 3 .ad on en ma lawn the rrydr.uc ndrrlt tarn eat na:h.a Sod Ueda. r M alt, e st 4 • teea d rrp.D.ed toop.a.$C ors M porn Moans es Inn Dart on innate .r1'✓.rarar furl tie atone sin. s Arne toter w Sr..' . N. mr'nous ✓•s' Sic app's. Seale canes fMlaWayne noes ma thorn sm ere same FIRM a. or W1MKMv. 'In Ibddtle• ono tood.n. IId1 all MMIW.ed Rom M fear FIRM My roe tan t .a..d In 1-040 m to Ian an Ninth a/I•I✓. tateo✓I•pns Ali • sea re r.ac Oar AM NOS, two Ira Is alai awe • M Ryas Inhalant SaaN Repo tea aeons .SlsIa•. I•SMwr SW SI Iraq Say ()Natal desa. NS Doom barn elm r Merl r III1 IRS Centel* Mr Yaw or lit tile. at lard a M W re SSW r M lyre Is tl.Irfs.n asap. ~nee to r pawn'.. Or 4•I•+Sa . err 'Si SLM.wt an slap are inter at Ta o as .rosi area rp¢W Iona as Fba o o•lar (a..n Can nano M NOMIS Soar Se e M MSS SS My SW. a 4 ana• ate re roan tan a as/ dl maI MS MSS mo SINN yd•rr• •Y ••• •N) Y C.a—vmm. S sass Nfra Rpm was :meow a•r a Sr sons. r wn r • MS Y e. MS a. al . - Sebe5s • tared RS aware e n .•rnY aaaae soalea• Sp Tom •III are we Map Soca COS lard air • 'a. NMSM m. A.dl6. O(aafa as. ease moon. safe SSW'S C' • SO ...Ewa 'Aar Anna Iran asp .•no Y Vie Its IM•• SINS MSS Car s achy a C- deify M Ow MSC ran•• • yam nr• MIN-sMises AS hen .tap. Sleet MOOaaI. a 1a. Loa Far Inane norm n gie.t a pain• d An PIMA Mao alMrrden aZalnp IF*J) • I ATI PIMA. MAP II tn.lraar. a as its RW Sauna II a :Ind Om abse il LEGEND auk FICOD MALMO MINAS ISMS.) AMZCT TO list n n! 1% at WAG ltOU) 3.a SS MSS tai (ISIS SW Om YOs w wr e• t• err noNo • Is.ai•• LSS Sse1 r .S•••• w wry ..s S Woe sew arrai r. Of so •tint Al Isla err I. OS1 .YS V A'5S r toot Ny west wan nom • • . M 1G a a. a rM fie an R d rand rehaw .eon in• is as lot Gallao ale zoom 1s !at t. ZS 10 SO AM • •r tome W NM Oo. MI Ss1 rod spo• M I Sn sear non is meth e✓ inn fu.ra.+ ~en A4eyr a 1 • SO Alb ea a:A sona awls. t slat =NM aeae•e• Ie IA ✓ rhea M Layton -at.' a aaenrina • ee tops Mae Ms Inn% went Lw Ia IN as Ms IS No • MS .as en S w OSO' Soar ant 4 Moan .• p. air M ran wen s atom ' al w se .-1a. 1.^ roe la salts w peas rte Ml r is pots lin IN Ss Oar Oen% • ISOan - Ad A Oaraa• s W Galt Sea antis Cs' W ra S St SW IS SO 1 an sea are. ara•er Ca r I S art mamma. tine law r PS I.sS— •1f1E'OInY AMOS MAN M .a a.aa • r a• • ran rair — ea ses wa ai r So tuna AAA M M we A Nome• can IS T Y— 5aN .••M.• awe. • —'S MOOR ncno Arab -• sun•• IA so -was IS ar..r 1'. .../ Sat..prb SS am S eS as IS e ! MSS • On S. Theo : vas tits w ad wan r ..t. I'M. IS • w: ,et same ONIEA MSS a. Sa•v.me S • ✓.Me• 0e u n art At %IS .•a w at' I!I non on ..sows NA oat COYIIAI MAIOR RtSOIACIS SYSIEN (MS) AREAS OMMWNI Malt Ciro AAA's (IOM) .root in On w ...M emaun.Nr• raw a%•a t a..-...». NAra• 45*•Glow a...n v.^aelw` S. air . n iss lawn •.amen —St SSA 5e ere use. AM w en N. SS. a Min yra rem —. ai r so roar. a+0 Orr .se steal as a as On .Pro awe.. .Ire —a a SW amen ear M Is 15'• w reed a-4 IS Si .S! es +R as .w• P '•I.SS.n e OVA Ass .soma 'rte f AM .s Ss w SIM is SF SGras SSW 4P se low, 1— -MS IS WM SS SIMS Inn uI Icy Slab IS PS SIM AS •ps AM �Caar1 pas. IL_iS Winn hes•• nits V✓ oar pa II line. no se .•rare • la •Ma. rain✓✓. l wr lrMI rw --N'IM. 014. Orr r•a •••Note -w —a ins N en•N• W1 W VNonArse retie- w.l Mtl WI tang air Inn red Dina (r S•0/.)•t' V ri W No As mei ii -nn as ID ran alpine 4iir Cmir444. in nun 4a raiser .v • in sis r Aso L. r was n ea . r ore ream •.r rawer as sr sere• lots •JSshWlr•wl.r•••a+sa• MISS= W SCALA I' • IOW e ace • Me rem Feat grey MI PANEL 11ME FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD C'OUNT\. COLORADO AND INCORPORATED %RE.AS MIS. HIS OF 2200 OFF MAP .as fat 44110 RAMS tA-DJT4 Matt GAIN WU Rota n at The Mop Nate oxen n oe awe be red one vino la Van. we Cerrap Nome vice• sown V.:aI to Mtn or rena ep sw a .re .aae,'a ate••YS MAP NUMBER 0612'J0116SE EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 20.2016 Point stoma(♦_, lionor_.J Atus. APPENDIX B-2 NRCS SITE SOIL SURVEY REPORT USDA United States Department of Agriculture N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part July 5. 2017 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers. developers, builders. and home buyers. Also. conservationists, teachers, students. and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal. State. and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local. and wider area planning. onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race. color. national origin, age. disability. and where applicable. sex. marital status. familial status, parental status, religion. sexual orientation. genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal. or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County. Colorado, Southern Part 13 32 —Kim loam. 1 to 3 percent slopes 13 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 14 64—Thedalund loam. 1 to 3 percent slopes 15 References 17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes: the general pattern of drainage: the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons. in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology. climate. water resources, soils, biological resources. and land uses (USDA. 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology. landforms, relief. climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping. this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly. individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map. however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless. these observations. supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture. size and shape of soil aggregates. kind and amount of rock fragments. distribution of plant roots. reaction. and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties. the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States. is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area. they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors. including scale of mapping. intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color. depth to bedrock. and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt. clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records. and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years. but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees. buildings. fields. roads. and rivers. all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest. a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features 0 • 0 0 0 e 0 N Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot a 0 05 •• Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails .-io, Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 10 MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 24.000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area. such as the Albers equal-area conic projection. should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 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: Apr 22, 2011 —Apr 28, 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (CO618) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 32 33 64 Totals for Area of Interest Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Descriptions 116.2 49.9 34.1 58.0% 24.9% 17.0% 200.3 100.0% The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus. the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely. if ever. can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently. every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit. and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting. or similar. components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components. however. have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting. or dissimilar. components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed. and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The 11 Custom Soil Resource Report delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer. all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition. thickness. and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope. stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion. and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences. a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes. associations. or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas. or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils. 0 to 2 percent slopes. is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362b Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362c Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform. Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 64—Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363g Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 29 inches: loam H3 - 29 to 33 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.9 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ulm Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin. L.M., V. Carter. F.C. Golet. and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13. 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580 Tiner. R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 17 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientistsOcid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States. the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_052290.pdf 18 APPENDIX B-3 NOAA SITE RAINFALL DATA 6/22/2017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA' Latitude: 40.574°, Longitude: -104.9015° Elevation: 5103.09 ft** source ESRI Maps source. USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavbvic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh. Michael Yekte. Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service. Silver Spring, Maryland PF Sabular I PF ciraphical I Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration Average recurrence Interval (years) I 1 L2 I 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5 -min 1 0244 (0.194-0.304) 0.293 (0.232-0.365) 0.388 (0.307-0.486) 0.484 (0.380-0.608) 0.639 (0.494-0.858) 0.777 (0.581-1.05) 0.931 (0.669-1.28) 1.10 (0.758.1.56) 1.36 (0.892-1.96) 1.57 (0.994-2.27) 10-min 0.358 (0.284-0.446) 0.428 (0.340-0.534 0.569 (0.450-0.711) 0.708 (0.557-0.890) 0.935 (0.724-1.26) 1.14 (0.851-1.53) 1.36 (0.980-1.88) 1.62 (1.11-2.28) 1.99 (1.31-2.87) 2.30 (1.46-3.32) 15 -min 0.436 (0.346-0.543) 0.522 (0.414-0.651) 0.693 (0.548-0.867) 0.864 (0.679-1.09) 1.14 (0.883-1.53) 1.39 (1.04-1.87) 1.66 (1.20-2.29) 1.97 (1.35-2.78) 2.43 (1.59-3.50) 2.81 (1.78-4.05) 30 -min 0.586 (0.465-0.730) 0.700 (0.555-0.873) 0.927 (0.733-1.16) 1.15 (0.907-1.45) 1.52 (1.18-2.05) 1.86 (1.39-2.50) 2.23 (1.60-3.07) 2.64 (1.81.3.73) 325 (2.14-4.70) 316 (2.38-5.43) 60-min0.721 (0.573-0.898) 0.860 (0.682-1.07) 1.14 (0.903-1.43) 143 (1.12-1.79) 1.90 (1.48-2.56) 2.33 (1.74-3.15) 281 (2.02-3.87) 3.35 (2.30.4.73) 4.15 (2.73-5.99) 4.82 (3.05-6.95) 2 -hr 0.856 (0.684-1.06) 1.02 (0.814-1.26) 1.36 (1.08-1.68) 1.70 (1.35-2.12) 228 (1.78-3.05) 2.80 (2.11-3.75) 3.39 (2.4.6-4.64) 4.05 (2.81-5.68) 5.04 (3.35-7.22) 5.87 (3.75-8.39) 3 -hr 0.933 (0.748-1.15) 1.11 (0.888-1.36) 1.47 (1.18-1.82) 1.85 (1.47-2.29) 2.48 (1.96-3.31) 3.06 (2.32-4.09) 311 (2.71-5.06) 4.45 (3.11-6.20) 5.55 (3.71-7.91) 6.47 (4.16-9.20) 6-hr1.08 (0.868-1.31) 129 (1.04-1.57) 1.72 (1.38-2.09) 2.14 (1.71-2.63) 2.84 (224-3.73) 3.47 (2.64-4.57) 4.17 (3.06-5.61) 4.95 (3.48-6.82) 6.11 (4.12-8.61) 7.08 (4.60-9.97) 12-hr1.28 (1.04-1.54) 1.52 (1.23-1.84) 1.99 (1.61-2.41) 2.44 (1.96-2.97) 3.16 (2.50-4.08) 319 (2.90-4.92) 4.48 (3.31-5.95) 5.25 (3.72-7.14) 6.37 (4.33-8.87) 7.30 (4.79-10.2) 24 -hr 1.54 (1.26-1.84) 1/9 (1.46-2.14) 2.28 (1.85-2.73) 2/4 (2.22-3.30) 3.48 (2.77-4.43) 4.12 (3.18-5.28) 4.82 (3.60-6.33) 5.61 (4.01-7.54) 6.74 (4.63-9.29) 7.68 (5.10-10.6) 2 -day 116 (1.45-2.08) 2.08 (1.70-2.46) 2.64 (2.16-3.13) 3.15 (2.57.3.76) 3.93 (3.13-4.91) 4.58 (3.55-5.79) 529 (3.96-6.83) 6.04 (4.35-8.01) 7.12 (4.93-9.68) 8.00 (5.37-10.9) 3 -day 1.92 L(1.58-2.26) ] 224 (1.85-2.64) 2.82 (2.32-3.33) lI 3.35 (2.73-3.97) 4.14 (3.30-5.13) 4.80 (3.74-6.02) J 5.51 (4.15-7.07) 628 (4.54-8.26) 7.36 (5.12-9.94) 1 824 (5.57-11.2) 4 -day 2.04 (1.69-2.39) 2.38 (1.96-2.79) 2.97 (2.45-3.50) 3.51 (2.88-4.15) 4.32 (3.46-5.33) 4.99 (3.90-6.23) 5.71 (4.31-7.29) 6.48 (4.70-8.49) 7.58 (5.29-10.2) 8.46 (5.74-11.5) 7 -day 2.31 (1.92-2.69) 2.72 (2.26-3.17) 3.42 (2.83-3.99) 4.03 (3.32-4.72) 4.90 (3.93-5.97) 5.61 (4.39-6.91) 6.35 (4.81-8.00) 7.12 (5.19-9.21) 8.19 (5.75-10.9) 9.03 (6.18-12.1) 10 -day 2.56 (2.13-2.96) 3.02 (2.52-3.50) 3.80 (3.16-4.41) 445 (3.68-5.19) 5.38 (4.31-6.48) 6.11 (4.79-7.46) 6.85 (5.21-8.57) 7.62 (5.58-9.79) 8.67 (6.11-11.4) 947 (6.52-12.7) 20 -day 3.31 (2.78-3.79) 3.84 (3.22-4.41) 412 (3.95-5.43) 5.45 (4.53-6.29) 6.45 (5.19-7.66) 7.21 (5.70-8.69) 7.98 (6.11-9.85) 8.76 (6.46-11.1) 9.78 (6.96-12,7) 10.6 (7.35-14.0) 30 -day 3.90 (3.29-4.44) 449 (3.78-5.12) 5.44 (4.57-6.22) 6.23 (5.20-7.15) 7.29 (5.89-8.59) 8.10 (6.42-9.88) 8.89 (6.84-10.9) 9.69 (7.18-12.2) 101 (7.68-13.9) 11.5 (8.06-15.1) 45 -day 4.59 (3.88-5.20) 5.27 (4.45-5.97) 6.36 (5.36-723) 7.24 (6.07-8.26) 8.41 (6.82-9.84) 9.29 (7.39-11.0) 10.1 (7.84-12.3) 11.0 (8.18-13.7) 12.1 (8.68-15.5) 12.8 (9.06-16.8) "-day (4.35-5.78) (4.35-5.78) 5.91 (5.01-6.67) 7.15 (6.04-8.09) 8.14 (6.84-9.25) 9.44 (7.67-11.0) 10.4 (8.29-12.3) 11.3 (8.76-13.7) 12.2 (9.11-15.1) 13.3 (9.61-17.0) 14.1 (9.99-18.4) 1 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 probabilty that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) w8 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 vaid PMP values. Please refer to NOM Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to TOO https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.5740&Ion=-104.9015&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 6/22/2017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server PF graphical PDS-based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves Latitude: 40.5740°, Longitude: -104.9015° 16 14 12 a 10 a, 8 O L a 6 a, a 4 2 0 c c c tA el el E pp� 5D t N r Duration r 4 N ro Io et ro Io "C v v O O Al INS N O e4 > >� CO In ea RI c -c II O O in O N m n ;o 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Average recurrence interval (years) Created (GMT): Thu Jun 22 17:44:30 2017 Back to T00 Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 Duraton 5 -awn — 2 -day — 10 -mm — 3 -day 15 -mm — 4 -day — 30 -mm — 7 -day — 60 -min — 10 -day 2 -hr — 20 -day — 3fir — 30 -day 6 --hr — 45 -day 12 -hr — 6O -day 24 -hr hops://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.5740&Ion=-104.9015&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/4 6/22/2017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server + 3171 2mi i r--)112 -- -- 14-�. . t 4•o Large scale terrain 4 Ti r ,f --�i r-- 7J i ' L, r z 0 Z 2 ma Ise IP tP For tCollins ' 1 Ili 1 I Iii a `;�.. Boulder• A' r)-1 AA - F I'4 t 401 _ _ 3/4 Cheyenneamos r - +. aIIMIM ' • creeley • Longmont • 6 ,i Denver U — 4 100km a mi Large scale map Large scale aerial https://hdscenws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfdtprintpage.html?lat=40.5740&lon=-104.9015&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 3/4 6/22/2017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.aov Disclaimer https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds jrintpage.htm I?lat=40.5740&Ion=-104.9015&data=depth&uni ts=english&series= pds 4/4 APPENDIX B-4 HISTORIC RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants II, 'tnrtt /funt.Jf('aladatiani hull Balm Area (arm) Bailin taper. autrs. Runof (oefldantssc 364.1 If S s. 1r I i 1. Kuntall Inirn.ih I (le/hr) Hain I4m.. (�(a1.1_ IK),\ As Sail Type A Sal Type H I %al I%pc C Sal Typo I) Gravel Rad (ac) Rail I ant 1a Untie (so) I % 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr (II) (II) (a'fl) (nit) (min) OW Mini 2 Yi S P. Fi Yr 100 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr lir Yr I00 Yr 110 97 37 6 0 0 21 4 0 0 000 0 00 110 97 2-0 0.01 0.02 Oat 020 3567 500 0 036 0 025 25 7 41 'd 74 6 0 7. 0 w i 25 2 45 0 52 1 70 504 55 03 A POt 3 % Irwpenitan Sal l)pc ,\ Sal T5pc Is Sal Type C Sill I.pe I) 20 2 y 5)r ID 5r IM 'r SOS yr ( tmpoSte: $76I 000 2336 000 111) 97 73 95•. 000•. 21 05% 0 00% 100'. () Itasca Dana 01756 133-01756.1700I Suppallku Ctrla:. Kundl Sumo, ass 001 0.0I 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 00I 0.05 0.05 0 02 0.0I 0.07 015 0,15 004 0 13 044 0.49 0.49 0.20 0.27 054 0 59 0 59 034 Site Imperviousness 1 atilt ( Iradnclopcd 1•Awr faint Raidaa Depth 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr 500 Yr PI 056 114 143 2SI 4 IS \uth: I Rdot In lablc K1}313 Soc Impemouatcn Ilntone flow analysts 2•. rmpcnxusncsc 2 Rater to I:rban I katnapc Meta Menial Vol I I able K( /•S Iii Hamill Inelliuutt.. l I:auatiuu TI Tr - Ti r -(0.395•(1 I1:5)•4 05) Sr 033 CS 5 Yr Runoff CaelCacni Li 500 ft maximum Si - avarge wwramrao asap. I (2S 5•P I) - (10- Tc) 0 7$6 Pt 1.6r pant run/all depth le timeolcaatcnt main Tt (4.500)' V V CvS'0 5 CV - Cal.eyaaoe Cac(Oaonl 7, .bat pasture, law11. ( I atle Rut) Yu average watormuno dope Q CPA C Runoff Coca -Kam : I Rainfall Inlcnata A Ara APPENDIX B-5 OFFSITE RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Offaitr Runoff ( alcularions Kazin Bala Arta (errs) Basle laspeniouaaaae Kunaff CadMwta, c I.rrad Ii al aw TI Ti Tc InIma4t I (IWhr) Brie Han (II (Bin) P0A Ara Sal Type A Sol I spe II Sal lype C Sol Type 0 Oovel Rota (ac) Hotel auk (ac) tindasclopod (ac) 1 % 2 Yr S Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr (R) OD ova) Ma) (mm) (aie) (mm I 2 Yr S Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr 2 Yr S Yr 10 Yr IOU Yr OS -IA 12 21 11 14 000 0 17 000 0 00 000 32 2 2 0 0 01 0 01 0 01 0.13 3401 500 0 040 0 023 27 94 41.69 71 61 077 102 1 29 2 52 0.13 0 21 OM 10 52 A t1ti-111 5402 4514 1 D RU 000 000 0u0 540 20 001 001 003 0-19 _ 3177 S00 0052 001416 2546 5356 7902 072 093 120 235 024 069 199 24 IS A Bata OS• I •. bepervvwv Sal 'Typc A Sal Typc B Sal Typc C Sol 1 vial 0 20 2 yr Syr IN yr Nil r Modified: 31 84 000 0 37 0.00 32.21 1000'. 91 IN. 000". IIS% 0 00•. 0.01 001 001 0.01 0.01 001 001 005 005 0.0I 001 11 07 O 15 O 1 0.01 U 49 0 49 U 13 027 054 0 59 0 59 U 27 Bede Os -Ill +. Impervious Sol Typo A Sal Type B Sal Type C Sal Typo I) 20 2 y 5 y III yr 10/yr 500y, 43 14 1 00 11$ 000 5502 1000•• 12 (W•• 112•. 16 14". U 00". 001 001 001 001 00I 001 001 0 05 0 os 001 001 007 O IS U IS 003 0 13 044 0 49 0 49 U 19 027 0 54 U 59 0 49 027 0 PRgsf lko.a01756 133-01756.17001 SupprOkaata a Runoff Simon al. S4tr lerpenir.rwr.. I .M. UnJcvclopoi 2 1-haar Point Rainfall Depth 2 Yr S Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr 500 Yr PI I 0.16 1 1 14 1 143 1 211 1 4.15 I Rely: l0 I ably RI ) 1 Iry SOc Impttnwmw. I ilt10n. Iluw an.h.r+ 2". rmpervnw.no.. 2 Rcla 101 irt.an I)r.rn.pc t rrlcn. Manual Vol I I -able RI. S Ira Hunall l:nclliaeni. C fat Tt-To-It Ti - (0395•(1. I-CS)•LU 0.5) Si 0 31 CS S Yr Runo(f CoMfiaoat I. 500 ft. maximum Si inane ',maroon Jape Ti (I -total -500y r V V Cv•SO.5 C. Cawcyanue Cadlk7ont (fablo R(Y2) Sw averaw wabrao.ow laps I 1215•PI) (10 -lc) 0716 PI 1 -hr prang vandal) Jcplh Tc time of anmtraar.n Q C•I•A C 1 A Runoff Coal(eocnt Rainfall Internet, Ara APPENDIX B-6 DEVELOPED RUNOFF CALCULATIONS WRY St naaa Rnd> Mil and Asphalt Plants Developed Runoff C'akslana l Bada Seam Aral laao) Bab Inegerleissers M1a.B('aelkaab, a 140101 Te RaaCSt !await, I (bat) Neill new. Q (ra) Arm bl IwoInv SrSµ Sod l's¢C Sod IyptI) tn.wla.rl(raj Mod Teel Ie&l :Wm, I.:ndnw*Pad041 Is :b )lr 11 IWYI VIII tA)_ Imwl) 2h 111 hi It Iwfi VIII, 21r IIt a I1, Ita. Yr Vu 11 IYIA newt 1511 Si? El U1 1046 UIIII WY) I1a :4d II04 11 012 Ob C 033 U61 IW6 117 101 253 110 634 0:: 6`1 1061 14W C22 13.a a Liao: IV) 1A Otat 163 0 O not ,,y n4.1 II) II V u14 03) U44 716 I.0 :U2 261 115 SW bA lU: IVI 161 Iv 41 Ave 1 Sas I lapw.lra. Tilr i I b e Paa4 Ralldg 11 pa : L 1. to 11 UM lW IS VW St :11 4 14 Pt u 141 41r IO yr 13 n 410 yr 4.d IlI4.\ Sad 11v. le Sod 1we C Sod :Well I• Ur. t. 0/0•3 It. 1511 Ifaf. n_ 24 03 0311 21 a b' u 2? 11 26 1112 rt 6: 041 1rr3 `. Inprn.,.a Sd lrwA Ind 1114 II Sod Irv.' A1d we l: 11 2r ay. Ur I66 )r !Co )r U nw. 1)10 .P. 101 SP. .a• s61 six" n n I; al out Ua i1 I 1 I, n :I :I Itsa Via .11: 11 1141 062 052 al Imlwatlbverin 756 11141 Ns 111th l $yyaR3last ace Mini Sam Qs Made s, 1 eble 6 1 to Sea awa.Yaanse 2 aaau In l.r6al i Teas e l 'rte• %WWaal %al I Talk 6-4 Its Wan Caala.•4 C Te - lo I (215.PI) 110.11.)'0 The, I'I 1 iv bead rainfall JeP, It wee ,duwuhtu)aa Q COMA I' MIMI I'naitlae I MSS Y1erall A Me APPENDIX C - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C- 1 PIPE AND CULVERT SIZING CALCULATIONS Culvert Calculator Report Culvert 1 Solve For: Headwater Elevation Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation Computed Headwater ElevE Inlet Control HW Elev. Outlet Control HW Elev. 5,192.00 ft 5,191.99 ft 5,191.79 ft 5,191.99 ft Headwater Depth/Height Discharge Tailwater Elevation Control Type 1.00 23.76 cfs 5,191.37 ft Outlet Control Grades Upstream Invert Length 5,189.99 ft 135.85 ft Downstream Invert Constructed Slope 5,189.39 ft 0.004417 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile Slope Type Flow Regime Velocity Downstream M1 Mild Subcritical 3.79ft/s Depth, Downstream Normal Depth Critical Depth Critical Slope 1.98 ft 1.34 ft 1.24 ft 0.005558 fUft Section Section Shape Section Material Section Size Number Sections Circular Concrete 24 inch 2 Mannings Coefficient Span Rise 0.013 2.00 ft 2.00 ft Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. Ke 5,191.99 ft 0.20 Upstream Velocity Head Entrance Loss 0.28 ft 0.06 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev 5,191.79 ft Inlet Type Beveled ring, 33.7° bevels K 0.00180 M 2.50000 C 0.02430 Y 0.83000 Flow Control Area Full HDS 5 Chart HDS 5 Scale Equation Form Unsubmerged 63 ft2 3 B 1 Title: Simon Severance p:\...\supportdocs\calcs\simon culvertmaster.cvm ECS-IIVIR-USA 08/09/17 04:40:04 PM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: kathy.junglen CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04] +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX C-2 DRAINAGE CHANNEL SIZING CALCULATIONS Worksheet for Channel OS -1A Maximum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Manning Formula Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge 0.035 0.01920 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 4.00 ft 17.80 ft /s Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type Subcritical 0.78 ft 4.35 ft2 7.50 ft 0.58 ft 7.13 ft 0.75 ft 0.02277 ft/ft 4.09 ft/s 0.26 ft 1.04 ft 0.92 GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 0.78 ft 0.75 ft 0.01920 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBbod4etsMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03) 712712017 9:35:16 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Channel OS -1A Minimum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Manning Formula Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge 0.035 0.01250 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 4.00 ft 17.80 ft31s Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type Subcritical 0.88 5.06 7.93 0.64 7,52 0.75 0.02277 3.52 0.19 1.07 0.76 ft ft2 ft ft ft ft ft/ft ft/s ft ft GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope 7/27/2017 9:34:31 AM 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 0.88 ft 0.75 ft 0.01250 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solabotl4yt wMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03) 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown. CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Channel OS -1 B Maximum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Manning Formula Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge 0.035 0.00950 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft 33.90 ft3/s Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type Subcritical 1.64 ft 8.62 ft' 9.32 ft 0.93 ft 8.54 ft 1.36 ft 0.02093 ft/ft 3.93 ft/s 0.24 ft 1.88 ft 0.69 GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope 0.00 ft 000 ft 0 0.00 ft 000 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 164 ft 1.36 ft 0.00950 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBUotl&yeiiswMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 7/17/2017 12:31:42 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Channel OS -1B Minimum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Manning Formula Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge 0.035 0.00400 ft/ft 2 00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft 33 90 ft3/s Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type Subcritical 1.99 ft 11.91 ft2 10.90 ft 1.09 ft 9.96 ft 1.36 ft 0.02093 ft/ft 2 85 ft/s 0 13 ft 2.12 ft 0.46 GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps 0 00 ft 000 ft 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope 0 00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 1.99 ft 1.36 ft 0 00400 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBbetI filawMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 7/1712017 12:30:37 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX C-3 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Severance Rudy Mix and Asphalt Plants ( ultrr7 Runoff ( "Inactions t 11%1141 IU (.Irrritelag �� IS-yr (A) 176-yr {A) ISN' Kt: In. Diler. OS S• 7w (D1) M/. 01e. AU ("Jabal I OS I III 5 42 21'76 5191 77 51919 5191 03 312 2 - 2P Cdn111d ss r Odeon Maim STRIA— RK ID U pWe U tIn Oscine pa Heel. V-. 1a41 14,A.re I>•Wh VI (A) ,lllaaalec 1ckza..• (5b.00) Td rotlt�R; Lba 1.' ws a -r. I-ea.16�Rrs A.e Ibal !I L!) r • pD Rq Rap (Fyne 9.31) the I Amman. 0.II IIn) I•.Ic(, Lin) I t:6200) pI)'I (Ire 9.15) Al MI5 I.nptl+ kit, r•I) (Abel 101 10.17 (Min, (fl) IK III) (ulo+) I 111e 1.42 3.00 II 11 420 I. 4 II 21 67 40 5 I r' I 20 1 e 1.•• • Ur E. I. In • Un Wac ol 1• I) 1 hi.. nom ran I ban I M*map:. I Mamas.: ('nlcn. Mao.l, V019200 I. hy.n MU -21. No Futter ('thuSis Repaid 0th Calculations Dart ID ('.11rIM1tr1 N..ba Ita 1011-a17pr (05) (et) 1Od. Napa ( awn, Wept Depth of }'1.w (a) Rq'd Dept • }nt.r eel (AI pliers MIt Depth (A) Vela*kewske.r oh) teellrl.w hark • 111,41rRabarRaba (A) Saar non Erma.. antral antra (lr.doS•IA{A/o Abp.. (SIA 291 1710 Inprr.w41. I?IWmm :I I .^. 101 2 1.5 00)3 071 061 049 11176 ( therel OS.1 A SI.. S4q.. I OS -IA 294 1710 1 taper 44 5 smirk I$.alm : I : 1•. 0.74 2 441 0 073 104 0 55 002 IRM Cleled()6-IIIOda Mom.; OS -III •R}S' •R1F)' Ir.pu.aMt I:Rowan I It 4". 142 251 0035 046 091 023 1RM Chiral OS-IIl(Abu S1gcc) OS -Ill III}' •RF}' Irapciodd %ante< It -awe I I I I•. I.II 2 3.67 0037 073 077 031 145.1 P 017%-133-01756-I 7001 Sapp:lba c'Ma Mad Sl.lw .0 APPENDIX C-4 DETENTION POND DESIGN DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER UO-Oe*RVon. Version 3.07 (February 2017) Prect: Sever axe Resew tea aid Mpr11 Mires Bann 10- MMs Pond, Pora A sae, r• Avail 'al .1 Mew raw MOMS —a. Mr. Example Zone Conitpuraon (Retention Pond) Requited Volume Cakulellon Sastrd OW Type • Wanher) Ms• 15 t3 acre Wrlwxnef Sr • 1026 e WtWs7et Scope• 0016 WanneO npwreusp • 2200'% wan Pncrnam Madopc Sol Orono A • 340% penes Peoesgs t%J.A,,c Sol Oap O • Ofl 34734.4 Panel IHr&O. SaOva C.O • a0% penes Oared NOCV Oren Teo • CO tows Leann kw 1-w Rail Oven • Dew - Cal SwrO War Orly Can Wens MICC% • 0 463 xww Eaca. Lao Rudd Were rE*.M4 • 0312 webs 2-yr Runoff W►nr (P1 •0 95 in ) • 0166 awe 5y Runoff floe (PI • I 14 in l • 0324 awe Wyr Runoff Vann IP1 • 143 in ) • 0520 aeon 25-yr Runoff Wine IPI• 19 n.)• 1000 prow 50yr Rudl Wien*PI a2.33 in 1 • 8439 webs 100yr Rudd Van) (P I • 231 n.) • 2 046 riot 500yr Rudd W&,m. (P1 •4 IS In ) • 3615 fail A pro nlae 2.yr Deletion Volans • 0173 1v.w AwAnn+.SyrPrelim Volans a 0X6 ao►ret Apnea 10.yr Delman Wien • 0395 webs App•am1al 25yr O wen Wien • 0547 nets A4varnea 5 -yr 0elerev. Volans • 0647 webs Apploolrr 10Dyr Delwin Wear • 0893 amine EDS 5tapeilage CatatWdun mne 1 WIG (1004.11)• Saws ion 2 Slave Wets (00arai Sawt lbw 3 Snoop Wine (0;401/1 • Teti Detamrl Son Volume • lid Sucherpe Wan. USN • WO Sw11wie 040111 (150) • TOW Ate Daradon Depth (14,ra) • Doter d Trickle Chemist (Ka • Slope d Trlckb Channel (Su) • Slogs d Men Been Skin Own Lerl/Al .Weh Rao (R,,,,.) et &rea pe Mee N..) • Surcharge Wlnr Lw1201 (L...) • Sant . Wens WOn OH,,) • One at Sam Mbar M.,r•) • La.yt. d Oen Mb0 0.i,..) • Wean d Sam Aka aka sal • Mrs d Sean Moor ties, raa • aamedSan now NI,:r a Depth d Mon lam (PL.) t d Men Sam (1,,,,,,) • was d Mm Seen Mom), kr d Mel Ben (kw.) • floe at Men Seen (V.'s.) • CatWe1 Total Bee Winn 64„, 0) Oplorel Ilrw Oren* 14‘ Prenswainn 056 1 14 143 100 233 261 416 Inches mane ones soh.. Ichs i choo mono 1AOCv not province Depth Inararlere • 01 Sep -Strap Oncraon Steps na Olitnril Ow•Me Bleat l(111(5) lamb WM 01a Mee (et) Crude No O1'4) Mr (awe) Were Nfnr rX e110opMIaop Top ool - 0.00 •• - - 8 0000 - 020 •• - - 495 0000 37 0.561 - 0.40 - - - 1.023 0023 114 0004 -- 0a -- - - 1,32 0042 470 0011 - 060 •• - - 2.36 0006 DOS 0021 - 100 -- - - 4.007 0092 1.581 0006 120 - - - 6.3112 0124 2106 0060 - 140 - - - LS 0100 1727 00116 - 160 - - - 6.733 0200 4363 0123 160 - - - 10;670 0246 7.310 0195 - 20D - - - 12130 0295 91.3 0210 - 220 - - - 16,074 0346 12.301 0 26 - 240 - - - 1.3670 0357 1547• OS 2.50 - - - a776 0431 10.212 0411 - 2110 •• - - 20.795 0477 23.106 OS32 -- 3.00 •• - - 2286 0.625 27,529 0642 - 320 - - - 35036 0576 32,315 07C -- 340 - - - 27.312 0527 37,563 0 88 -- 300 - - - sat 0562 43.263 013 - 150 - - - 32.170 0 730 49.439 1 1315 - 400 - - - 34,742 0796 55,130 1295 - 420 - - - 37.406 0669 63.346 1464 - 442 - - - 119.539 0906 21,039 1631 - 450 - - - 41.126 0944 79.109 1616 - 460 - - - ens ant 67.490 2005 - 5CO - - - 44306 1017 95.192 2206 - 520 - - - 46.37 1054 106212 2415 - SC - - - 47.491 1000 114,561 2 43 - 560 - - - 49,a5 1127 124101 2561 - 510 - - - tta3 1 164 134.103 3060 - 500 - - - 52361 1256 144.467 3317 Porn I dim. Serf 132272017, 1158 OM IDetention Basin Outlet Structure Design 11112211VO alt tufty.' �,y UD-Detention, Version 3.07 (February 2017) Project: Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Basin ID: West Pond, Pond A raCMl I loudMgt I lOMt 1 anOn minces Example Zone Configuration (Retention Pond) rosrtsn Dane( User Input: Orifice at Underdrain Outlet (typically used to drain WQCV in a Filtration BMP) Underdrain Orifice Invert Depth = Underdrain Orifice Diameter = !one 1 (100 -year) Zone 2 Zone 3 Stage (ft) Zone Volume (ac -ft) Outlet Type 145 0.893 ft (distance below the filtration media surface) inches 0.893 Total Calculated Parameters for Underdrain Underdrain Orifice Area = Underdrain Orifice Centroid = h' feet User Input: Orifice Plate with one or more orifices or Elliptical Slot Weir (typically used to drain WQCV and/or EURV in a sedimentation BMP) Invert of lowest Orifice = Depth at top of Zone using Orifice Plate = Orifice Plate: Orifice Vertical Spacing = Orifice Plate. Orifice Area per Row = ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = Oft) inches inches User Input: Stage and Total Area of Each Orifice Row (numbered from lowest to highest) Stage of Orifice Centroid (ft) Orifice Area (sq inches) Stage of Orifice Centroid (ft) Orifice Area (sq inches) Calculated Parameters for Plate WQ Orifice Area per Row = Elliptical Half -Width = Elliptical Slot Centroid = Elliptical Slot Area = N/A N/A N/A N/A h' feet feet ft' Row 1 (optional) Row 2 (optional) Row 3 (optional) Row 4 (optional) Row 5 (optional) Row 6 (optional) Row 7 (optional) Row 8 (optional) Row9 (optional) Row 10 (optional) Row 11 (optional) Row 12 (optional) Row 13 (optional) Row 14 (optional) Row 15 (optional) Row 16 (optional) User Input: Vertical Orifice (Circular or Rectangular) Invert of Vertical Orifice = Depth at top of Zone using Vertical Orifice = Vertical Orifice Diameter = Not Selected Not Selected ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage r 0 ft) ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage - 0 ft) nches Calculated Parameters for Vertical Orifice Vertical Orifice Area = Vertical Orifice Centroid = Not Selected Not Selected ft' feet User Input: Overflow Weir (Dropbox) and Grate (Flat or Sloped) Overflow Weir Front Edge Height. Ho = Overflow Weir Front Edge length = Overflow Weir Slope = Morinlength of Weir Sides = Overflow Grate Open Area %_ Debris Clogging % = Not Selected Not Selected ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) feet H (enter zero for flat grate) feet %, grate open area/total area % User Input: Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate (Circular Orifice, Restrictor Plate, or Rectangular Orifice) Depth to Invert of Outlet Pipe = Circular Orifice Diameter = Not Selected Not Selected User Input: Emergency Spillway (Rectangular or Trapezoidal) Spillway Invert Stage= Spillway Crest Length = Spillway End Slopes = Freeboard above Max Water Surface = 12.00 4.00 1.00 ft (distance below basin bottom at Stage = 0 h) inches ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) feet H:V feet Calculated Parameters for Overflow Weir Height of Grate Upper Edge, H. _ Over Flow Weer Slope length = Grate Open Area / 100-yr Orifice Area = Overflow Grate Open Area w/o Debris = Overflow Grate Open Area w/ Debris = Not Selected Not Selected feet feet .horild be - 1 ft- ft - Calculated Parameters for Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate Outlet Orifice Area = Outlet Orifice Centroid = Half -Central Angle of Restrictor Plate on Pipe = Not Selected Not Selected N/A N/A Calculated Parameters for Spillway Spillway Design Flow Depth= feet Stage at Top of Freeboard = Basin Area at Top of Freeboard = feet acres ft' feet radians Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period • One -Hour Rainfall Depth (in) Calculated Runoff Volume (acre -ft) • OPTIONAL Override Runoff Volume (acre -ft) • Inflow Hydrograph Volume (acre -ft) • Predevelopment Unit Peak Flow, q (cfs/acre) • Predevelopment Peak 0 (cfs) Peak Inflow 0 (cfs) - Peak Outflow 0 (cfs) a Ratio Peak Outflow to Predevelopment 0 = Structure Controlling Flow • Max Velocity through Grate 1 (fps) Max Velocity through Grate 2 (fps) • Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume (hours) • Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume (hours) • Maximum Ponding Depth (ft) Area at Maximum Ponding Depth (acres) • Maximum Volume Stored (acre ft) _ WQCV EURV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50Year 100 Year 500 Year 0.53 1.07 0.86 1.14 1.43 1.90 2.33 2.81 4.15 0.163 0.312 0.185 0.324 0 520 1.000 1.439 2.046 3.618 0.162 0.312 0.184 0.32 3 0-520 1.000 1.439 2 045 3.618 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.20 0.53 0.83 1.25 2.33 0.0 00 0-1 1.1 31 8.4 13.1 19.8 36.8 2.9 55 33 57 91 17.4 24.9 352 613 DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER UD-DetentIon, Version 3.07 (February 2017) Protect se vet site Ready Ills and mown Plants Baeln 0: East Pond, Pond 6 a. war awl �I X7 • se.,ra I erne .•.nun. �. •°"' Exarytki Zone Configuration attention Pond) Required Volume Calculation Selected eW Type Watershed Mee • 897 acres Watershed Langer • Walnshed Slope • Watershed Ynpendswss= Perca'wge Hnitologw Sod Group A. Pnosape flnacaPc SOY Group B • Pwcenage lytrdugic Sod Grace CID • Dssad WOCV Oran rune • Le :ate , Ice 1 a Rental Depths • Denver - Caput Butlng Was wary Capture Volume (111,CiCV) • 0037 eo-ted Eta a Man Reno. Volume (EI I4 • ce-led 2-r RUM Volume (P1 •0 86 n ) - ce-led Syr Runt Volume (P I • l 14 in ) • r.a-4d toyr RUM Volum (Pl. 143 in.) I. wad 25yn Runoff Volume (PI = 1 941. ) • aosted 50yr Runt Wire (P1 •2 33 n. ) atlas 100yr Rrnm Were (PI •2.81 in I. 5t0yn Rzml W4mw (PI • 4.15 n 1' teed 4pprmmu 272 Dentition Miasma • ressied A0prunnale Syr Detect. Means • eon 472 Appends IOyr Detentcn Wtmw • wasted %prcaende 25 yr Detectlorr Wine • ayskid Pccn. vte 50yr DekMbn *keno • coniel Mprunnaw 100yr Ddenton Wore • oeast EDO 716 6 0.020 700% 800% 00% 400% Co patron Parent Percent pacers here. 006 0024 0067 0 112 0275 046 0 735 StapeStatape Calculation Zone I Vdune (WOCV) a Stitt ?ens 2 Sloalp Volume (Oltnatl • Select law 3 Moray Volume (Optimal) • US Dolma Saar Volume lei Sutler Vies 05V) kt Surcharge Depth OW) • Total Mddb Odttwn Depth Mad • Depth d TAOS! Charud MO • Saps d Tackle Channel (Su) • Sips d Main Bann Sales (5,,,,,J • Bean larph-b-Wdh Rdn (R, r•) • lad Combine Ana (Aw) • Surcharge Vdune length (L„,1 = Such•ny Memel Width Nt„„1 = Depn d Ban Flier 72„=.1' Length deem Flea (Le ,4 WAS of Ban Flea (deem•)= Mr d Onin Fat (AanJ • VAana el Beam Flax N,,...) • Meth d Fain Bean (K.d • Length d Mum Been (1....1 • Wan SIAM Basin (W...) = Mee d Man Ban (A..d Volume d Man Ben (V.r..) • Calculated Tad Bann Vim. N...,I 0022 0050 0074 0100 0136 0239 Oneonta Use Dvenlds 1-h P.acpsaaon Inches inches Inches 111006 ethers Inches Inches 026 1.14 Ile 1.90 233 211 4 15 Total detention v01uue Is kiss than 100yean vtlurw. O.Pth +.rams+ • 01 n Slags - More Oseclltun SW* Al OPtnrw Chem. Stags 181 Length 011 Wei 01) Area MO) Ottwrst Chants Mr OIRI Aran (co) Vines a 226 *lane sal 0005 Mlaopoed - 000 - - - 038 0015 Top or - 0.20 - - - 1,802 0.041 - 0.10 - - - 3.086 0.070 701 0016 - 060 - - - 4.430 0102 1,437 0033 - 010 - - - 5,896 0136 2,184 0.056 - 100 - - - 7A% 0171 3,774 0067 - 1.20 - - - 9.123 0209 6,418 0124 - 140 - - - 10.067 0 250 7.399 0.170 - 110 - - - 12350 0293 9,744 0224 - 180 - - - 14,669 0337 12,489 0286 - 200 - - - 16.607 0381 15,579 03.56 - 220 - - - 17.166 0394 19,122 0439 - 240 - - - 17,727 0407 22,611 0519 - 2.60 - - - 1A69 0420 26,213 0602 - 210 - - - 16264 0433 29.927 0267 - 300 - - - 19.420 0 406 33.754 0 775 - 320 - - - 19,988 0459 37895 0885 - 3.40 - - - 20,557 0.472 41.750 0966 - 360 - - - 21.125 0486 45.918 1054 - 310 - - - 21301 0498 50,201 I 152 - 400 - - - 22276 0511 54.599 1751 Pond 2414m, Ban 122212017, 1156AM 1517 Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design 1 UD-Detention, Version 3.07 (February 2017) Project: Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Basin ID: East Pond. Pond B la>YR vT EU2 auNa Rv PERMANENT Pool ZONE ZONE Z ZONE N ZONE 1 NIP 2 ORIFICE* Example Zone Configuration (Retention Pond) imvlAR oNaflcE User Input: Orifice at Underdrain Outlet (typically used to drain WQCV In a Filtration BMP) Underdrain Orifice Invert Depth Underdrain Orifice Diameter = Zone 1 (WQCV) Zone 2 Zone 3 Stage (ft) Zone Volume (ac -ft) Outlet Type 0.63 0.037 ft (distance below the filtration media surface) inches 0.037 Total Calculated Parameters for Underdrain Underdrain Orifice Area = ft- Underdrain Orifice Centroid = feet User Input: Orifice Plate with one or more orifices or Elliptical Slot Weir typically used to drain WQCV and/or EURV in a sedimentation BMP) Invert of lowest Orifice = Depth at top of Zone using Orifice Plate = Orifice Plate: Orifice Vertical Spacing = Orifice Plate: Orifice Area per Row = ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) inches inches User Input: Stage and Total Area of Each Orifice Row (numbered from lowest to hghest) Stage of Orifice Centroid (ft) Orifice Area (sq. inches) Stage of Orifice Centroid (ft) Orifice Area (sq. inches) Calculated Parameters for Plate WQ Orifice Area per Row = N/A ft' Elliptical Half -Width = Elliptical Slot Centroid = Elliptical Slot Area = N/A N/A N/A feet feet ft2 Row 1 (optional) Row 2 (optional) Row 3 (optional) Row 4 (optional) Row 5 (optional) Row 6 (optional) Row 7 (optional) Row 8 (optional) Row 9 (optional) Row 10 (optional) Row 11 (optional) Row 12 (optional) Row 13 (optional) Row 14 (optional) Row 15 (optional) Row 16 (optional) User Input: Vertical Orifice (Circular or Rectangular) Invert of Vertical Orifice = Depth at top of Zone using Vertical Orifice = Vertical Orifice Diameter = Not Selected Not Selected ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) inches Calculated Parameters for Vertical Orifice Vertical Orifice Area = Vertical Orifice Centroid Not Selected Not Selected ft? feet User Input: Overflow Weir (Dropbox) and Grate (Flat or Sloped) Overflow Weir Front Edge Height, Ho = Overflow Weir Front Edge Length = Overflow Weir Slope = Honz. Length of Weir Sides = Overflow Grate Open Area % = Debris Clogging % Not Selected Not Selected ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) feet H:V (enter zero for flat grate) feet %, grate open area/total area User Input: Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate (Circular Orifice, Restrictor Plate, or Rectangular Orifice) Depth to Invert of Outlet Pipe = Circular Orifice Diameter = Not Selected Nat Selected User Input: Emergency Spillway (Rectangular or Trapezoidal) Spillway Invert Stage= Spillway Crest Length = Spillway End Slopes = Freeboard above Max Water Surface = ft (distance below basin bottom at Stage = 0 ftl inches ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) feet H:V feet Calculated Parameters for Overflow Weir Height of Grate Upper Edge, H, _ Over Flow Weir Slope Length = Grate Open Area / 100-yr Orifice Area = Overflow Grate Open Area w/o Debris = Overflow Grate Open Area w/ Debris = Not Selected Not Selected feet feet should be≥ 4 ft' h' Calculated Parameters for Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate Outlet Orifice Area = Outlet Orifice Centroid = Half -Central Angle of Restrictor Plate on Pipe = Not Selected Not Selected N/A N/A Calculated Parameters for Spillway Spillway Design Flow Depth= feet Stage at Top of Freeboard = feet Basin Area at Top of Freeboard = acres h' feet radians Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period = One -Hour Rainfall Depth (in) _ Calculated Runoff Volume (acre -ft) _ OPTIONAL Override Runoff Volume (acre -ft) = Inflow Hydrograph Volume (acre -it) _ Predevelopment Unit Peak Flow. q (cfstacre) _ Predevelopment Peak O (cfs) _ Peak Inflow Q (cfs) Peak Outflow O (cfs) = Ratio Peak Outflow to Predevelopment Q Structure Controlling Flow = Max Velocity through Grate 1 (fps) Max Velocity through Grate 2 (fps) _ Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume (hours) =I Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume (hours) _ Maximum Ponding Depth (fl) = Area at Maximum Ponding Depth (acres) = Maximum Volume Stored (acre -ft) = WQCV EURV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year 500 Year 0.53 1.07 0.86 1.14 1.43 1.90 2.33 2.81 4.15 0.037 0.045 0.024 0.053 0.112 0.275 0.445 0.735 1.517 0.036 0.045 0.023 0.052 0.112 0.274 0.444 0.734 1.516 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.37 0.65 1.08 2.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 3.3 5.8 9.7 19.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.0 2.2 5.2 8.4 13.9 28.4 Simon Contractors Company Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants 133-01756-17001 Pond A 100 year, 1 -hour storm volume = 2.046 acre-feet Drain Time 43560 f t2 1 sec 1 min 1 hour 2.046 AC FT x AC x 0.4 f t3 x 60 sec x 60 min = approximately 62 hours Pond B 100 year, 1 -hour storm volume = 0.735 acre-feet Drain Time 43560 f t2 1 sec 1 min 1 hour 0/35 ACFTx x x x AC 0.4 f t3 60 sec 60 min = approximately 22 hours 133-01756-17001 Tetra Tech Project Number Siphon Design Calculation Title Q OUTFALL Q PER PIPE Diameter: Area: Velocity: Velocity Head: Wetted Perimeter (wp): Hydraulic Radius (r): Roughness (n): Friction Slope (Sf): Minor Losses (K): Entrance: 45° Bend 45° Bend Exit: Minor Loss: Major Loss: E_ E/D= Re= f= L= Total Headloss: Hydraulic Summary: WSE Pond: WSE Downstream: DS Ground Elevation: A = n/4d2 V= Q/A V2 /2g ir(D) A/wp Sj - r1.491VR 1 2 n J h 25 cfs 25 cfs 2 ft 3)2 0.5 0.4 0.4 1 IKV2/2g h1=f• L •`l no; 2g PVD/µ Ample head to convey flow within siphon. Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plant Site Project Name 3.14 ft2 7.82 ft/s 0.95 ft 6.28 ft 0.50 ft 0.01 0.00697 ft/ft 2.18 ft 1.38 ft 0.001 ft 0.0005 129680 0.018 162 ft 3.57 ft 5182.93 feet 5179.36 feet 5174.51 feet (+/-) 133-01756-17001 Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plant Site Tetra Tech Project Number Project Name Siphon Design Calculation Title Pond A: 45 YR OUTFALL Diameter: Area: Velocity: Velocity Head: Wetted Perimeter (wp): Hydraulic Radius (r): Roughness (n): Friction Slope (Sf): Minor Losses (K): Entrance: 45° Bend: 45° Bend: Exit: Minor Loss: Major Loss: 0.4 cfs 0.67 ft A = Tr/4d2 V=Q/A V2 /2g rr(D) A/wp V 2 312 l n h 0.5 0.4 0.4 1 >KV2/2g L r1 k=1-1.4 0.35 ft2 1.13 ft/s 0.02 ft 2.10 ft 0.17 ft 0.01 0.00064 ft/ft 0.05 ft 0.18 ft £ = 0.001 ft £/D= 0.001493 Re = PVD/µ 6302 f = 0.040 L = 152 ft Total Headloss: 0.23 ft Hydraulic Summary: WSE Pond: WSE Downstream: DS Ground Elevation: 5181.98 feet 5181.75 feet 5174.51 feet (+/-) 133-01756-17001 Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plant Site Tetra Tech Project Number Project Name Siphon Design Calculation Title Pond B: Q5 YR OUTFALL Diameter: Area: Velocity: Velocity Head: Wetted Perimeter (wp): Hydraulic Radius (r): Roughness (n): Friction Slope (Sf): Minor Losses (K): Entrance: 45° Bend: 45° Bend: Exit: Minor Loss: Major Loss: Si 0.4 cfs 0.67 ft A = rr/4d2 0.35 ft2 V = Q/A 1.13 ft/s V2 /2g 0.02 ft n(D) 2.104865 ft A/wp 0.1675 ft V 1 0.01 = (r1.49�/2 0.00064 ft/ft l n h 0.5 0.4 0.4 1 >KV2/2g hi= f• LDh• `�1 2g 0.05 ft 0.19 ft E = 0.001 ft E/D= 0.001493 Re = PVD/µ 6302 f= 0.040 L = 162 ft Total Headloss: 0.24 ft Hydraulic Summary: WSE Pond: WSE Downstream: DS Ground Elevation: 5181.88 feet 5181.64 feet 5174.51 feet (+/-) APPENDIX D - SUPPORTING CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX D- 1 CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY ACCEPTANCE OF RUNOFF CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY Weld County Department of Planning Services Attn: Kim Ogle 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 December 20, 2017 RE: USR17-0043 (Cactus Hill Ranch Company and Simon Contractors, Inc.) Dear Mr. Ogle: This letter is sent to you in reference to Condition of Approval 1.E. regarding "overland flows of water from the Property". The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Cactus Hill Ranch Company, a Colorado corporation, is the Owner of the Property upon which the above referenced USR is to be located, which is part of the West One -Half (W1/2) of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. Additionally, Cactus Hill owns all additional property located south of the subject property being the entire Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section 16, the East Half (E1/2) of Section 17, the West Half (W1/2) of Section 21 all located in Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Cactus Hill Ranch Company has agreed to receive and accept all drainage, stormwater, and any other overland flows of water from the USR Property. These waters will flow onto Property of Cactus Hill Ranch located in said Sections 16 and 21 located directly south of the USR Property in a manner consistent with historical flow and runoff patterns, at a point in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of Section 16. You are further advised that the historical flow patterns, runoff and stormwater amounts on the site will be maintained as required by Development Standard No. 30, with all such runoff to be received and accepted by Cactus Hill Ranch as stated herein above. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very, very truly, Nels Nelson President, Cactus Hill Ranch Company 38990 State Hwy 257 Fort Collins, CO 80524 PHONE 970-686-2215 FAX 970-686-5851 APPENDIX D-2 DWR CONCURRENCE CORRESPONDENCE Johnson, Anne From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: David M Rau <dmrau@paragoncg.com> Friday, December 22, 2017 1:27 PM Johnson, Anne Fwd: Letter regarding Simon Contractors Stormwater Proposal DWR Storm Water Statement.pdf: ATT00001.htm From: "Deatherage - DNR. Jeff' <1eff.deatherage@state.co.us> Date: December 22. 2017 at 8:32:31 AM MST To: "John J. Cyran" < cyran@hfak.com> Cc: Sarah Brucker <sarah.brucker@state.co.us> Subject: Re: Letter regarding Simon Contractors Stormwater Proposal Hello John, I reviewed the information you provided regarding storm water runoff on a parcel located in the eastern portion of Water District 3. From the information you provided, I understand that storm water from this site may have historically run into the WSSC canal. but it sounds like WSSC doesn't want the stormwater to continue to be directed into the canal. This site is now proposed to be developed by construction of the "Simon Contractors facility" and storm water from the site is proposed to be directed to an area of native vegetation (not irrigated cropland). The storm water will first be collected in two detention ponds and the ponds will drain to the native vegetation that is to be located to the south of the property (also south of the canal) The proposal as described. is acceptable provided the detention ponds meet the requirements of the storm water legislation that passed in SB 15-212 (found in section 37-92-602 (8), C.R.S.) for release or infiltration of the captured storm water. The storm water released from the detention ponds must be returned to the stream system or aquifer and not consumed for a beneficial purpose. Unless the storm water detention structures can meet the requirements of a "storm water detention and infiltration facility" as defined in section 37-92- 602(8), C.R.S., the structures may be subject to administration by this office. I have attached a copy of DWR's Administrative Statement Regarding the Management of Storm Water Detention Facilities and Post-Wildland Fire Facilities in Colorado for your reference. This document and additional information is also available on our website at this link: http://water. state. co. us/SurfaceWater/SWRights/Paqes/GraywaterStormw ater.aspx In order to meet the notification requirements, the applicant is encouraged to use the Colorado Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Facility Notification Portal, located at: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif A copy of SB 15-212 is also available on our website at this link: http://water.state.co.us/DWRDocs/News/Paqes/RelevantWaterLegislation .aspx I have forwarded your letter to our Division 1 office for their comments. but I have not received comments from them yet. If they have comments or concerns with the proposal, I will let you know. If you have any questions. let me know. Thank you. Jeff Jeff Deatherage, P.E. Water Supply Chief P 303.866.3581, x-8244 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 jeff.deatherageCa�state.co.us www.water.state.co.us On Wed. Dec 6. 2017 at 12:36 PM. John J. Cyran < Jeff: icvran2hfak.com> wrote: Thank you for speaking to me on the phone recently regarding a stormwater runoff plan being proposed by my client, Simon Contractors. Consistent with our conversation, attached is a letter and engineering report describing how my client intends to maintain stormwater runoff patterns. and why this proposed plan should not. I believe, cause concerns for the State Engineers. If you have any questions regarding this letter. please contact me at the below address. Highest regards, John John J Cyran Hoskin Farina & Kampf PC Denver Office 3570 E 12th Ave, Suite 314 Denver, Colorado 80206 (720; 459-5760 (office) (303) 746-3802 (cell) FAX: (720' 459-5761 cyran(c�hfak.com Confidential and Privileged: This e-mail communication, including any attachment(s), contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any review. disclosure, copying. printing, distribution, or use of its contents or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error. please notify our administrator immediately by telephone at ;970' 986-3400, return the original communication and its attachment(s) to adminhfak.com and permanently delete the communication from your system. Thank you. TETRA TECH December 6, 2017 John J. Cyran, Esq Hoskin Farina & Kampf, PC 3570 East 12') Avenue, Suite 314 Denver, Colorado 80206 RE: Stormwater Runoff at Proposed Simon Contractors Facility, Weld County, Colorado; Tetra Tech Job No. 133-01756-17001 Dear Mr. Cyran: Tetra Tech has prepared this letter to present salient information regarding stormwater runoff from the proposed Simon Contractors facility in Weld County. The project comprises approximately 30.8 acres and is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 257 and Weld County Road 80.5. The land is a part of a tract of land located in the west half of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. The project is currently being considered by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners for a Use by Special Review (USR). As a part of the USR process, a hydrology report was prepared and submitted to the Weld County Planning Department for review and referral to other parties that could be affected by the proposed project. As we discussed, Weld County requires detention of 100 -year developed flows with a release rate equivalent to the 5 -year, pre -project flows. The Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC), owner of the Larimer County Canal which is located on the southern boundary of the subject property, has objected to the discharge of any quantity of stormwater runoff from the project site into the canal. Prior to development of the project, stormwater runoff from the project site and other upgradient areas flowed directly to the Larimer County Canal. We evaluated alternatives to discharge stormwater runoff to the area downslope of the canal. Prior to the construction of the canal, the stormwater runoff from upgradient areas and the project site drained naturally to the south through cultivated fields historically farmed by Cactus Hill Ranch. The attached Figure 1 shows the USGS topographic map of the area. The figure shows that the topographic trends in the area result in southerly natural stormwater flow paths. After canal construction, stormwater runoff from the project site that naturally flowed to the south was intercepted by the canal higher on the slope. After WSSC refused acceptance of any stormwater runoff from the project site, we are left with no other engineered alternative other than to convey site stormwater runoff past the canal such that it will flow to Tetra Tech 1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I -E, Longmont, CO 8050 I Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com Thi TETRA TECH John J. Cyran, Esq. December 6, 2017 Page 2 the area south of the canal on Cactus Hill Ranch in a manner consistent with natural flow patterns that existed prior to construction of the canal. Figure 1 also shows the proposed improvements and is attached to this letter. As shown on the figure, stormwater runoff from the project area will be collected in two detention ponds within the project area. The detention ponds will be drained south past the canal via inverted siphons. The ponds will release stormwater runoff on to an area vegetated by native grasses, before flowing generally south along its natural flow path. We understand that you will submit a letter requesting guidance and concurrence from the Division of Water Resources so that we may comply with applicable State water law. To accommodate the WSSC objection to accepting stormwater runoff from the project area, we propose to convey stormwater runoff from the project site past the canal such that it will combine with other stormwater runoff and flow through Cactus Hill Ranch in a manner consistent with natural flow patterns that existed prior to construction of the canal. This will mimic the natural storm runoff patterns. We have also attached historical aerial photos of the project site. The photos date back to 1937. The photos show that the field to the south of the canal. through which the stormwater runoff naturally flows, has been under cultivation for at least that long. This plan allows us to satisfy the WSSC request to prevent project site stormwater runoff from entering the canal and restores the natural flow conditio that existed prior to construction of the canal without putting the water to beneficial use. Sincerely, T"A'TEC Jeff a Projec ngineer P.E., CFM Enclosures: Figure 1 Historical Aerial Photographs cc: Mr. Brett Baker/Simon Contractors (bbaker@simoncontractors.com) Mr. John Pinello/Simon Contractors (JPinello@simoncontractors.com) simoncontractors.com) Ken Lind, Esq (ken@lorlegal.com) lorlegal.com) Mr. David Rau/Paragon Consulting Group, Inc. (dmrau@paragoncg.com) P:\01756\133-01756-17001\Docs\Reports\DWR Letter\DWR Letter 2017-12-01 FINAL.docx 3 } CC G 2 d >- a X a a cc 3 0 I- z 0 C C C.� d> in tn 0 cD Agricultural Land CR 80 1/2 and Hwy 257 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Inquiry Number: 5114836.1 November 22, 2017 The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package C'EDRS 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor Shelton, CT 06484 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 11/22/17 Site Name: Client Name: Agricultural Land CR 80 1/2 and Hwy 257 Fort Collins, CO 80524 EDR Inquiry # 5114836.1 Paragon Consulting Group 1103 Oak Park Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Contact: Heather Alderman CE Dit' Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs. and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year 2011 2009 2006 2005 1999 1993 1988 1984 1971 1941 1937 Scale 1"=500' 1"=500' 1"=500' 1"=500' 1"=500' 1 "=750' 1 "=750' 1"=500' 1"=500' 1"=500' 1"=500' Details Flight Year: 2011 Flight Year: 2009 Flight Year: 2006 Flight Year: 2005 Acquisition Date: October 04, 1999 Flight Date: June 27, 1993 Flight Date: September 05, 1988 Flight Date: October 13, 1984 Flight Date: August 07. 1971 Flight Date: August 06. 1941 Flight Date: June 22, 1937 Source USDA/NAIP USDA/NAIP USDA/NAIP USDA/NAIP USGS/DOQQ USGS USGS USDA USGS USDA USDA When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE. INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 5114836 - 1 page 2 INQUIRY #: 5114836.1 YEAR: 2011 INQUIRY #: 5114836.1 YEAR: 2006 N - = 500' 'EDR INQUIRY It 5114836 1 YEAR 2005 N = 500' CEDR INQUIRY #: 5114836.1 - SOU t Nis' art 1ST. ry! .Li „3t: �t 't ytassereassies-rre 7� Y-'-' Es _'sawi+.:-' t Y.sas....:t •-f -a 40 INQUIRY #: 5114836.1 YEAR 1941 N � E DR = 500' r-isc.IMP�•i .r -w Nt. COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver, Co 80203 Administrative Statement Regarding the Management of Storm Water Detention Facilities and Post-Wildland Fire Facilities in Colorado February 11, 2016 The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has previously administered storm water detention facilities based on DWR's "Administrative Approach for Storm Water Management" dated May 21, 2011. Since the passage of Colorado Senate Bill 15-212, that administrative approach has been superseded. This document describes SB 15-212, codified in section 37-92-602(8), Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.), and how the law directs administrative requirements for storm water management. The document is for informational purposes only; please refer to section 37-92- 602(8) for comprehensive language of the law. Pursuant to section 37-92-602(8), storm water detention facilities and post-wildland fire facilities shall be exempt from administration under Colorado's water rights system only if they meet specific criteria. The provisions of SB15-212 apply to surface water throughout the state. SB15-212 only clarifies when facilities may be subject to administration by the State Engineer; all facilities may be subject to the jurisdiction of other government agencies and must continue to obtain any permits required by those agencies. Storm Water Detention Facilities Pursuant to section 37-92-602(8), a storm water detention and infiltration facility ("Detention Facility") is a facility that: • Is owned or operated by a government entity or is subject to oversight by a government entity, including those facilities that are privately owned but are required by a government entity for flood control or pollution reduction. • Operates passively and does not subject storm water to any active treatment process. • Has the ability to continuously release or infiltrate at least 97 percent of all of the water from a rainfall event that is equal to or less than a five-year storm within 72 hours of the end the rainfall event. • Has the ability to continuously release or infiltrate at least 99 percent of all of the water from a rainfall event that is greater than a five-year storm within 120 hours of the end the rainfall event. • Is operated solely for storm water management. 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, Co 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us Administrative Statement: Storm Water and Post-Wildland Fire Facilities, DWR February 11, 2016 Page 2 of 5 In addition, to qualify for the allowances provided in SB-212, the facility: • Must not be located in the Fountain Creek watershed, unless the facility is required by or operated pursuant to a Colorado Discharge Permit System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit issued by the Department of Public Health and Environment pursuant to Article 8 of Title 25, C.R.S. • Must not use water detained in the facility for any other purpose nor release it for subsequent diversion by the person who owns, operates, or has oversight over the facility. The facility cannot be operated as the basis for a water right, credit, or other water use right. • Must not expose ground water. • May include a structure or series of structures of any size. If the Detention Facility was constructed on or before August 5, 2015 and meets all the requirements listed above, it does not cause material injury to vested water rights and will not be subject to administration by the State Engineer. If the Detention Facility is constructed after August 5, 2015, meets the requirements listed above, and the operation of the detention facility does not cause a reduction to the natural hydrograph as it existed prior to the upstream development, it has a rebuttable presumption of non -injury pursuant to paragraph 37-92-602(8)(c)(II). A holder of a vested water right may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine whether the operation of the detention facility is in accordance with paragraph 37-92-602(8)(c)(II)(A) and (B) has caused material injury. If the court determines that the vested water rights holder has been injured, the detention facility will be subject to administration. In addition, for Detention Facilities constructed after August 5, 2015, the entity that owns, operates, or has oversight for the Detention Facility must, prior to the operation of the facility, provide notice of the proposed facility to the Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) Notification List for the water division in which the facility is located. Notice must include: the location of proposed facility, the approximate surface area at design volume of the facility, and data that demonstrates that the facility has been designed to comply with section 37-92-602(8)(b) paragraphs (B) and (C). The State Engineer has not been given the statutory responsibility to review notices, however, DWR staff may choose to review notices in the course of their normal water administration duties. Not reviewing notices does not preclude the Division Engineer from 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, Co 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us Administrative Statement: Storm Water and Post-Wildland Fire Facilities, DWR February 11, 2016 Page 3 of 5 taking enforcement action in the event that the above criteria are not met in design and/or operation. To satisfy the notification requirement, operators are encouraged to use the Colorado Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Facility Notification Portal developed by Urban Drainage and Flood Control District ("UDFCD"), located at: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif. Types of detention Facilities contemplated under this statute include underground detention vaults, permanent flood detention basins,' extended detention basins,' and full spectrum detention basins.3 Storm Water Best Management Practices' (BMPs) not contemplated above, including all Construction BMPs and non -retention BMPs, do not require notice pursuant to SB- 212 and are allowed at the discretion of the Division Engineer. Green roofs are allowable as long as they intercept only precipitation that falls within the perimeter of the vegetated area. Green roofs should not intercept or consume concentrated flow, and should not store water below the root zone. BMPs that rely on retention, such as retention ponds and constructed wetlands, will be subject to administration by the State Engineer. Any detention facility that does not meet all of the statutory criteria described above, in design or operation, is subject to administration by the State Engineer. ' Flood detention basin: An engineered detention basin designed to capture and slowly release peak flow volumes to mitigate flooding (Urban Drainage and Flood Control, 2010). 2 Extended detention basin: An engineered detention basin with an outlet structure designed to slowly release urban runoff over an extended time period (Urban Drainage and Flood Control, 2010). 3 Full spectrum detention basin: An extended detention basin designed to mimic pre -development peak flows by capturing the Excess Urban Runoff Volume and release it over a 72 hour period (Urban Drainage and Flood Control, 2010). ' Best management practice: A technique, process, activity, or structure used to reduce pollutant discharges in stormwater (Urban Drainage and Flood Control, 2010). 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us Administrative Statement: Storm Water and Post-Wildland Fire Facilities, DWR February 11, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Post-Wildland Fire Facilities Pursuant to section 37-92-602(8), a post-wildland fire facility is a facility that: • Includes a structure or series of structures that are not permanent. • Is located on, in or adjacent to a nonperennial streams. • Is designed and operated to detain the least amount of water necessary, for the shortest duration of time necessary, to achieve the public safety and welfare objectives for which it is designed. • Is designed and operated solely to mitigate the impacts of wildland fire events that have previously occurred. In addition, to qualify for the allowances provided in SB-212, the facility: • Must be removed or rendered inoperable after the emergency conditions created by the fire no longer exist, such that the location is returned to its natural conditions with no detention of surface water or exposure of ground water. • Must not use water detained in the facility for any other purpose nor release it for subsequent diversion by the person who owns, operates, or has oversight over the facility. The facility will not be operated as the basis for a water right, credit, or other water use right. If the post-wildland fire facility meets the requirements listed above, it does not cause material injury to vested water rights. While DWR recognizes that post-wildland fire facilities are essential to the protection of public safety and welfare, property, and the environment, DWR may, from time to time, request that the person who owns, operates, or has oversight of the post-wildland fire facility supply information to DWR to demonstrate they meet the criteria set forth above. If a post-wildland fire facility does not meet all the criteria set forth above, it will be subject to administration by the State Engineer. DWR may use the National Hydrography Dataset or other reasonable measure to determine the classification of a stream 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver. Co 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us Administrative Statement: Storm Water and Post-Wildland Fire Facilities, DWR February 11, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Resources and References Colorado Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Facility Notification Portal: https: //maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif Colorado Senate Bill15-212: http: //www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2015A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/13B28CF09699E67087257DE80 06690D8?Open &tf i le=212_en r. pdf United States Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset: http://nhd.usgs.gov/ Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 37-92-602(8) explanation memo and FAQ's: http: / /udfcd.org/crs-37-93-6028-explanation-memo-and-faqs/ Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. (2010). Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual: Volume 3, Best Management Practices, updated November 2015. Located at: http://udfcd.org/volume-three 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver. Co 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us Graywater and Storm Water Page 1 of 1 COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources Graywater and Storm Water Graywater Use Graywater is a portion of the water used in a residential, commercial, or Quick Links industrial building that may be collected after the first use and put to a I, Colorado Revised Statutes second beneficial use. Though recent changes to Colorado statues and ; Colorado Stormwater Detention and regulations provide a framework for the use of graywater, graywater use Infiltration Facilities Notification Portal remains subject to compliance with local regulation and Colorado's water CSu rights system. Jurisdictions at the city, city and county, or county level Rainwater Harvesting Graywater Reuse and must create a graywater control program and adopt an ordinance or resolution to allow graywater use prior to graywater use in the jurisdiction. Contact your local government office to find out if your jurisdiction has a graywater program. Graywater use is subject to compliance with Colorado's water rights system, including well permit conditions and water supplier restrictions. Please see DWR's 2011 Administrative Position for Graywater Reuse or contact DWR to learn more about the interactions between graywater use and Colorado's water rights system. Additional resources: • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment- Graywater Information Sheet • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment- Regulation 86: Graywater Control Regulation • CSU Extension: Graywater Reuse and Rainwater Harvesting Storm Water Management Senate Bill 15.212 exempts many storm water detention and infiltration facilities from administration in Colorado's prior appropriation system so long as the facilities meet specific statutory criteria, including that they do not divert the water for beneficial use, that ground water is not exposed, and that new facilities are properly designed and noticed. For more information on the notice process, see the Colorado Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Facilities Notification Portal. For any questions related to the use of the Notification Portal, please contact Urban Drainage and Flood Control District at 1(303) 455-6277J. For more information on the statutory criteria please see DWR's Administrative Statement. Landscaping that is planted on roofs (green roofs) is allowable as long as the landscaping intercepts only precipitation that falls directly onto the landscaping. The landscaping may not intercept and consume concentrated flow and may not store water below the root zone. Please see DWR's Administrative Statement for additional details. (Page Revision: 4/3/2017) Related Documents Administrative Statement Administrative Position for Graywater Reuse (.0df) Administrative Statement Regarding the Management of Storm Water Detention Facilities and Post-WAIdland Fire Faculties in Colorado (2/11/2016) (.P00 http://waterestate.co.us/SurfaceWater/S WRights/Pages/GraywaterStormvvater.aspx 12/22/2017 Legislation Page 1 of 1 Legislation COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources Copies of signed bills for water related topics. 2017 House and Senate Bills House Bill 17-1076, Rulemaking by the State Engineer regarding Permits for the Use of Water Artificially Recharged into Non -tributary Groundwater Aquifers 2016 House and Senate Bills • House Bill 16-1005, Use of Rain Barrels to Collect Precipitation • House Bill 16-1228, Agricultural Water Protection Program 2015 House and Senate Bills • Senate Bill 15-010, Augmentation Requirements for Wells Withdrawing Water from the Dawson Aquifer • Senate Bill 15.183, Quantification of the Historical Consumptive Use of a Water Right • Senate Bill 15.212, Regarding Water Detention Facilities for Stormwater Runoff • House Bill 15-1013, High Ground Water -Pilot Projects and Summary of Consultation report regarding recharge structures • House Bill 15.1166, South Platte River alluvial aquifer ground water monitoring network • House Bill 15-1178, Emergency dewatering grant program and data collection • House Bill 15-1278. Regarding Imoiementation of the Legislative Audit Committee's Recommendations for Review of Dam Safety 2014 House and Senate Bills • Senate Bill 14-026, Removal of Statutory Printing Requirements for DWR 2013 House and Senate Bills 2012 House and Senate Bills http://water.state.co. us/DW RDocs/News/Pages/Relevant WaterLegislation.aspx 12/22/2017 APPENDIX D-3 LINED POND DESIGN LETTER PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP SENT VIA EMAIL(Jeff.Butson@tetratech.com) December 18, 2017 Mr. Jeff Butson, P.E., CFM Tetra Tech 1900 Sunset Street, Suite 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 "SERVICE, QI TALITY, AND INNOVATION" RE: Pond Liner Information and Construction Notes Simon Contractors Stormwater Detention Ponds 8449 County Road 80.5 Weld County, CO Project Number 1017058 Dear Jeff: 1103 Oak Park Drive, Suite 110 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 377-1600 Fax 1970) 377-1880 www pargoncg.com DAVID M. RAt i, P.E., BCEE SGOTr A. Rt rn IERFORn, P.E. BRICK SMITII, P.E. BRAD C. WO) H.IiR H 111n H ilt S. Al .I * RMAN DAVIP L. WAI Kr:R The stockpiled material at Cactus Hill Ranch Company (CHRC), which is to be used as the stormwater detention pond lining material, was excavated during construction of a Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) pond at Cactus Hill Ranch. The subject material was classified as brown sandy lean clay (CL) by Earth Engineering Consultants (EEC) based on samples collected from the CHRC site in January 2009. A copy of the EEC report dated February 5, 2009 is attached to this note for reference. This subject material was labeled as pond slope/embankment or Material A. As seen from the EEC report, a falling head permeability test was completed on this pond material, remolded to approximately 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) at optimum moisture content. The material exhibited a falling head permeability coefficient (K) value of 2.6 x 10.8 centimeters per second (cm/sec) at that density. In our opinion, and based on EEC's report, a similar K value will be developed for the pond liner material when that material is compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density with the moisture content adjusted to within the range of -2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content. The maximum unit seepage rate or specific discharge through pond liner material allowed under the Colorado's CAFO regulation is 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. We believe that the subject stormwater detention ponds can meet the seepage rate requirement if they are lined with one (1) foot of the stockpiled material compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density with the moisture content adjusted to within the range of -2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, WATER RESOURCES AND GEOIIYDROLOGY SINt !" 1997 Mr..Ieff Butson. P.E., CFM/Tetra Tech - Simon Contractors Detention Ponds Project Number 1017058 December 18, 2017 Page 2 PARAGON Based on the maximum head depths for Pond A (5 feet) and Pond B (3 feet) at the 100 -year elevations that you provided, and one (1) foot pond liner thickness, the potential seepage rate for Pond A is calculated to be 1.6 x 1WI cm/sec and the potential seepage rate for Pond B is calculated to be 1.0 x HI cm/sec which will both meet the CAFO requirement. We believe that the actual seepage rates will be less because these calculations do not take into account the hydraulic conductivities and thicknesses of the native soils below the bottom of the pond liner to the top of the groundwater surface. Construction notes to add to the pond liner construction plans are as follows. 1. EARTHEN LINER MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPACTED NATIVE CLAY SOIL TO BE BORROWED FROM THE STOCKPILE ON CACTUS HILL RANCH PROPERTY. 2. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: SCARIFY TO 6 -INCHES (MIN) AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE BEFORE LINER MATERIAL INSTALLATION. 3. EARTHEN LINER MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPLETED TO ONE (1) FOOT THICK ON BOTTOM AND SIDEWALLS. THE LINER SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN 8 -INCH TO 10 -INCH LOOSE LIFTS AND THEN COMPACTED. COMPACTED LIFTS SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) INCHES. 4. COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SIDEWALLS BELOW CLAY LINER MATERIAL TO ≥ 95% of STANDARD DRY DENSITY AT -2% to +3% of OPTIUMUM MOISTURE PER ASTM D698. 5. COMPACT CLAY LINER MATERIAL TO ≥ 95% of STANDARD DRY DENSITY AT -2% to +3% of OPTIMUM MOISTURE PER ASTM D698. 6. GRANULAR MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE USED IN ANY OF THE RECOMPACTED MATERIAL. 7. COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER FOR DENSITY TESTING. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 24 -HOUR NOTICE PRIOR TO DENSITY TESTING. 8. ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS TO BE ON SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. 9. MOISTURE DENSITY TESTING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWELVE (12) RANDOM OR SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE COMPACTED IMPOUNDMENT Mr. Jeff Butson. P.E., CFM/Tetra Tech - Simon Contractors Detention Ponds Project Number 1017058 December 18, 2017 Page 3 PARAGON BOTTOMS AND ONE (1) TEST PER 100 LINEAR FEET OF COMPACTED SIDE WALLS. Additionally, the subgrades of the stormwater detention ponds should be surveyed prior to installation of the clay liners and the final grades of the stormwater detention ponds should be surveyed after installation of the clay liners, to verify the liner thicknesses. We recommend that you use these notes for your pond liner construction drawings. We have also attached some typical pond liner cross-section details which you should modify for use with your pond liner construction drawings. Per our discussion today, we have also modified a CAFO Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) so that it relates to cleaning activities for the subject stormwater detention ponds. The modified SOP is attached to this letter for your use. We will continue to coordinate with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Brick Smith, P.E. Colorado Number 29894��°� F r I .;��i� Principal Engineer a ‘604)-ak at_ David M. Rau, P.E., BCEE BS/DMR:bs2: Enc. February 5, 2009 EEC Report Typical Pond Liner Cross Section detail Standard Operating Procedure cc: Ken Lind, Esq. / Lind, Ottenhoff & Root, LLP via email (ken@lorlegal.com) Anne Best Johnson/Tetra Tech via (Anne.Johnson@tetratech.com) (BS3)N:\2017\PROJECTS\1017058\GEOTECH AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR POND LINER\1017058 POND LINER MATERIAL INFORMATION AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES 171218.DOCX EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INc. February 5, 2009 Paragon Consulting Group 6901 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80221 Attn: Mr. Brick Smith, P.E. Re: Laboratory Test Results Cactus Hill Ranch — Evaluation of Existing Pond Liner Material 38990 Highway 257 Windsor, Colorado EEC Project No. 1095002A Mr. Smith: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed the laboratory testing requested for two (2) composite samples collected at the referenced project. On January 9, 2009, EEC personnel met on -site with a representative from Paragon Consulting Group and obtained composite samples of the existing pond embankment/slope liner material and from the bottom of the existing pond situated near the southwest portion of the property. A diagram included herein depicts the pond location on the Cactus Hill Ranch site. The purpose of our assessment was to evaluate the existing in -situ material for use as low permeability earthen liner material. The results of the requested laboratory testing are summarized within this report. Two (2) composite samples were collected on January 9, 2009, one from the existing embankment/slopes and the second from the existing pond bottom for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing performed on the representative bulk samples included washed sieve analysis (ASTM C 117 and C 136), Atterberg limits (ASTM Specification D 4318) and standard Proctor (ASTM Specification D-698) tests. A Falling Head Permeability (ASTM D 5856) test was also completed on the existing pond embankment/slope material, remolded to approximately 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density at optimum moisture content. Results of the laboratory testing completed by EEC personnel are shown on the attached summary sheets and are indicated below in Table 1. 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1095002A February 5, 2009 Page 2 Table 1: Laboratory Testing Summary Sample Location Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Percent Passing No. 200 Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, PCF Standard Proctor Optimum Moisture Content, % Remolded Dry Density, PCF Coefficient of Permeability, k (cm/sec) Existing Pond Embankment/Slope Material 36 19 64.5 106.0 18.5 102.8 2.6 x 104 Existing Pond Material 50 29 90 97.5 21.5 --- --- The existing in -situ earthen liner embankment material exhibited a falling head permeability coefficient, (k) value of 2.6 x 10-8 cm/sec. It is our opinion the (k) value for the bottom pond liner material, with the soil classification properties as presented above, would be less than (slower than) the embankment/slope material. To develop a similar coefficient of permeability, as indicated above, we recommend placed liner materials are moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the reconditioned or placed materials should be adjusted to be within the range of -2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Liner materials should be placed in accordance with State of Colorado guidelines. Specific seepage rates would need to be evaluated by others based on pond depth, liner thickness, and material permeability. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Earth En_ineering Consultants, Inc. David A. Richer, P.E. Senior Project Engineer PO TEN TIAL POND AREA NO. 5 POTENTIAL POND AREA NO. 6 POTEN PAL POND AREA NO7 PO TEN DAL POND AREA NO. 8 Use letters for sample ID to differentiate with prior samples: A, B, C etc. POTENTIAL POND AREA NO 4 POTEN PAL POND AREA NO. 3 Might sample here if dry and if soil was recently removed Select up to 3 locations for Bulk sample, less if soil is consistent across pond APPabltIYrs SCALE r - 70o. Project War BS Drown by Pill Checked by BS Approved by DMR Legend APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of MONITORING WELL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SOIL BORING CORRAL AREA OFFICE POND STOCX WATER POND BUILDING (fPICAL) NOTE: DRAWNG BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW AND PUBLIC CEOPOSIRONINC SYSTEM (CPS) COORDINATES. ACTUAL CONDITIONS MAY VARY Figure 1 Sample Location Diagram Cactus Hill Ranch 38990 Highway 287 Fort Collins, Colorado PARAGON Consulting Group Environmental Engineering and Geohydrology 6901 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80221 Project Ma 1007053 Serie As Shown Ile Ma 53silc Dote. Aug 2008 Sheet Ma Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture -Density Relationship Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) 145 140 125 120 115 110 105 100 �--- 95 90 4.0 Material Designation: 1095002A -Pond Embankment Sample Location: On -Site Existing Embankment/Slope Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318) Liquid Limit: 36 Plastic Limit: 17 Plasticity Index: 19 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 64.5% r 25 30 L Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: 106.0 PCF Optimum Moisture Content:: 18.5% 5 10 15 20 Percent Moisture Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 35 Project. Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date January 2009 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Gradation Test Sieve Size Percent Passing No. 4 93% No. 10 92% No. 40 92% No. 200 64.5% Material Designation. Sample Location: Material Description: AASHTO Classification: 1095002A -Pond Embankment On -Site Existing Embankment/Slope Material Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) A-6 Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date January 2009 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture -Density Relationship Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 Material Designation: 1095002A -Pond Bottom Sample Location: On -Site Existing Material - Pond Bottom Description: Brown Fat Clay (CH) Atterberq Limits (ASTM D-4318) Liquid Limit: 50 Plastic Limit: 20 Plasticity Index: 29 Percent Passing No 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 90.2% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: 97.5 pcf Optimum Moisture Content:: 21 5% Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percent Moisture Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date Jan -09 Material Designation: Samp!e Location: Material Description: AASHTO Classification: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Gradation Test Sieve Size Percent Passing No. 4 100% No. 10 100% No. 40 99% No. 200 90.2% 1095002A -Pond Bottom On -Site Existing Material - Pond Bottom Brown Fat Clay (CH) A-7-6 Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date Jan -09 PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP - Cactus Hill Property - Windsor, Colorado Material Description: Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Liquid Limit: 36 Plasticity Index: 19 % Passing No. 200 65 Beginning Moisture: 17.0% Dry Density, PCF: 102.8 Percent Compaction 97% 1.2E-07 Coefficient of Permeability, k = 2.6 x 10-8 cm/s 1.0E-07 • E U 8.0E-08 _ Coefficient of Permeabi 6.0E-08 4.0E-08 2.0E-08 0.0E+00 ♦ • 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Elapsed Time [sec] 500,000 600,000 EEC Project Number: 1095002A Material Designation: Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Composite Sample - Existing Pond Embankment Material Date: 02/05/09 INSTALL CLAY LINER TO DIE HIGHEST ELEVATION THAT COULD BE UNDERWATER APPROXIMATE EXISTING - CONTOUR POND LINER I -FOOT THICK COMPACTED CLAY LINER 1BD TBO 4/I 4/1 Example Section SCALE 1'=50. (VERTICAL EXAGGERA TION 3X) TBO = TO BE DETERMINED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 7BD Example Section Simon Contractors Stormwater Detention Ponds Project *cc DMR Designed by. Drown by P11i Checked by. OS Approved by. DMR PARAGON Consulting Group Environmental Engineering. Water Resources and(icohydrology 1103 Oak Park Dnve #110 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Project No: 1017058 Scale: As Shown Flo Na 58cx-sec Daft Dec 15.2017 Sheet No: Standard Operating Procedure For Impoundment Cleaning and liner Protection Simon Contractors Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants 8449 County Road 80.5 Weld County, Colorado Fill-in the table below with the impoundment identification; an estimate of the length, width and depth; procedure used to clean the impoundment; and the measure(s) taken to protect the impoundment liner. Select all that apply from List 1 and List two 2 for liner protection methods that best match your operation and fill-in the chart with the corresponding number from I ists 1 and 2. For methods not on the list, list "other" and explain below. Impoundment Name or Description Type of Liner Estimated Dimensions width depth) (length, and in feet Removal Method(s) (from List 1 below) Liner Protection Method(s) (from List 2 below) Cleaning Frequency List I — Removal Methods List 2 — Liner Protection Methods I. Cleaning not needed 1. Remove teeth from bucket or 2. Mechanical Equipment (select all that implement apply) a. Backhoe 2. Add protective lip to bucket or implement b. Excavator c. Loader 3. Continual visual inspection used during pumping or agitation 3. Biological Treatment 4. Use a liner that will not erode during 4. Dredging/Bucket cleaning 5. Suction 5. Partial cleaning (explain below - e.g. 6. Pumping* a. With agitation will remove 50% or to a depth not more than 6 inches above the liner) b. Without agitation 6. Other: 7. Other: *If the facility chooses pumping (List 1, items 6a and 6b) as an option for sediment removal, the pipe inlet must be placed at a minimum of six inches above the impoundment liner. Information from the site map or survey will provide the operator with the impoundment depth and the operator can then measure the length of the pipe and place the inlet appropriately. Initial Standard Operating Procedure for Impoundment Cleaning and Liner Protection Simon Contractors Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants December 18, 2017 Page 2 Please initial below for how the top of the liner will be identified prior to a sediment removal event to ensure liner integrity is protected. The facility will identify the top of the liner by surveying or measuring the total depth of the impoundment. A copy of the survey or site map with the measurements for each impoundment(s) will be kept with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Initial Or A staff gauge is installed in the impoundment(s) that indicates the top of the lagoon liner. Initial Please initial each item below. The facility will retain a copy of the SOP on site. The facility will update the SOP if a new impoundment is constructed, if a different liner material is used, if the cleaning method(s) is changed and/or the liner protection method(s) is changed. Initial After cleaning each impoundment the operator will conduct a visual inspection, document that this approved SOP was followed and notify the facility within 30 days of the removal event if this SOP is not followed. Initial (BS3)N:\2017\PROJECTS\1017058\GEOTECH AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR POND LINER\1017058 SIMONS IMPOUNDMENT SOP 171218.DOCX PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP SENT VIA EMAIL(Jeff.Butson@tetratech.com) December 18, 2017 Mr. Jeff Butson, P.E., CFM Tetra Tech 1900 Sunset Street, Suite 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 RE: Pond Liner Information and Construction Notes Simon Contractors Stormwater Detention Ponds 8449 County Road 80.5 Weld County, CO Project Number 1017058 Dear Jeff: "SERVICE, QUALITY, AND INNOVATION" 1103 Oa Park Ihivc, Snicc 110 Fort Collins, CO 80525 I'honc (970).377-1600 Fax (970) 377ISSQ nzctv,pamgo ncg.com DAVID M. RAu, P.E., I10EE ScoTT A. RUTHERFORD, P.E. BRICK SMITH, P.E. BRAD C. WOHLER HEATHERS. ALDERMAN, DAVID L. WALKER The stockpiled material at Cactus Hill Ranch Company (CHRC), which is to be used as the stormwater detention pond lining material, was excavated during construction of a Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) pond at Cactus Hill Ranch. The subject material was classified as brown sandy lean clay (CL) by Earth Engineering Consultants (EEC) based on samples collected from the CHRC site in January 2009. A copy of the EEC report dated February 5, 2009 is attached to this note for reference. This subject material was labeled as pond slope/embankment or Material A. As seen from the EEC report, a falling head permeability test was completed on this pond material, remolded to approximately 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) at optimum moisture content. The material exhibited a falling head permeability coefficient (K) value of 2.6 x 10.8 centimeters per second (cm/sec) at that density. In our opinion, and based on EEC's report, a similar K value will be developed for the pond liner material when that material is compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density with the moisture content adjusted to within the range of —2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content. The maximum unit seepage rate or specific discharge through pond liner material allowed under the Colorado's CAFO regulation is 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. We believe that the subject stormwater detention ponds can meet the seepage rate requirement if they are lined with one (1) foot of the stockpiled material compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density with the moisture content adjusted to within the range of —2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, WATER RESOURCES AND GEOHYDROLOGY SINCE 1997 Mr. Jeff Butson. P.E., CFM/Tetra Tech - Simon Contractors Detention Ponds Project Number 1017058 December 18, 2017 Page 2 PARAG ON Based on the maximum head depths for Pond A (5 feet) and Pond B (3 feet) at the 100 -year elevations that you provided, and one (1) foot pond liner thickness, the potential seepage rate for Pond A is calculated to be 1.6 x 10-7 cm/sec and the potential seepage rate for Pond B is calculated to be 1.0 x 10-7 cm/sec which will both meet the CAFO requirement. We believe that the actual seepage rates will be less because these calculations do not take into account the hydraulic conductivities and thicknesses of the native soils below the bottom of the pond liner to the top of the groundwater surface. Construction notes to add to the pond liner construction plans are as follows. 1. EARTHEN LINER MATERIAL IS TO BE COMPACTED NATIVE CLAY SOIL TO BE BORROWED FROM THE STOCKPILE ON CACTUS HILL RANCH PROPERTY. 2. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: SCARIFY TO 6 -INCHES (MIN) AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE BEFORE LINER MATERIAL INSTALLATION. 3. EARTHEN LINER MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPLETED TO ONE (1) FOOT THICK ON BOTTOM AND SIDEWALLS. THE LINER SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN 8 -INCH TO 10 -INCH LOOSE LIFTS AND THEN COMPACTED. COMPACTED LIFTS SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) INCHES. 4. COMPACT SUBGRADE AND SIDEWALLS BELOW CLAY LINER MATERIAL TO > 95% of STANDARD DRY DENSITY AT -2% to +3% of OPTIUMUM MOISTURE PER ASTM D698. 5. COMPACT CLAY LINER MATERIAL TO > 95% of STANDARD DRY DENSITY AT -2% to +3% of OPTIMUM MOISTURE PER ASTM D698. 6. GRANULAR MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE USED IN ANY OF THE RECOMPACTED MATERIAL. 7. COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER FOR DENSITY TESTING. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 24 -HOUR NOTICE PRIOR TO DENSITY TESTING. 8. ENGINEER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS TO BE ON SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. 9. MOISTURE DENSITY TESTING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWELVE (12) RANDOM OR SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE COMPACTED IMPOUNDMENT Mr. Jeff Dotson. P.E., CFM/Tetra Tech - Simon Contractors Detention Ponds Project Number 1017058 December 18, 2017 Page 3 PARAGON BOTTOMS AND ONE (1) TEST PER 100 LINEAR FEET OF COMPACTED SIDE WALLS. Additionally, the subgrades of the stormwater detention ponds should be surveyed prior to installation of the clay liners and the final grades of the stormwater detention ponds should be surveyed after installation of the clay liners, to verify the liner thicknesses. We recommend that you use these notes for your pond liner construction drawings. We have also attached some typical pond liner cross-section details which you should modify for use with your pond liner construction drawings. Per our discussion today, we have also modified a CAFO Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) so that it relates to cleaning activities for the subject stormwater detention ponds. The modified SOP is attached to this letter for your use. We will continue to coordinate with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Brick Smith, P.E. Colorado Number 29894 BS/DMR:bs2: Enc. February 5, 2009 EEC Report Typical Pond Liner Cross Section detail Standard Operating Procedure -6).fav-tet David M. Rau, P.E., BCEE d Principal Engineer cc: Ken Lind, Esq. / Lind, Ottenhoff & Root, LLP via email (ken@lorlegal.com) Anne Best Johnson/Tetra Tech via (Anne.Johnson@tetratech.com) (BS3)N:120171PROJECTS110170581GEOTECH AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR POND LINER11017058 POND LINER MATERIAL INFORMATION AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES 17121a.DOCX EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. February 5, 2009 Paragon Consulting Group 6901 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80221 Attn: Mr. Brick Smith, P.E. Re: Laboratory Test Results Cactus Hill Ranch — Evaluation of Existing Pond Liner Material 38990 Highway 257 Windsor, Colorado EEC Project No. 1095002A Mr. Smith: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed the laboratory testing requested for two (2) composite samples collected at the referenced project. On January 9, 2009, EEC personnel met on -site with a representative from Paragon Consulting Group and obtained composite samples of the existing pond embankment/slope liner material and from the bottom of the existing pond situated near the southwest portion of the property. A diagram included herein depicts the pond location on the Cactus Hill Ranch site. The purpose of our assessment was to evaluate the existing in -situ material for use as low permeability earthen liner material. The results of the requested laboratory testing are summarized within this report. Two (2) composite samples were collected on January 9, 2009, one from the existing embankment/slopes and the second from the existing pond bottom for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing performed on the representative bulk samples included washed sieve analysis (ASTM C 117 and C 136), Atterberg limits (ASTM Specification D 4318) and standard Proctor (ASTM Specification D-698) tests. A Falling Head Permeability (ASTM D 5856) test was also completed on the existing pond embankment/slope material, remolded to approximately 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density at optimum moisture content. Results of the laboratory testing completed by EEC personnel are shown on the attached summary sheets and are indicated below in Table 1. 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1095002A February 5, 2009 Page 2 Table 1: Laboratory Testing Summary Sample Location Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Percent Passing No. 200 Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, PCF Standard Proctor Optimum Moisture Content, % Remolded Dry Density, PCF Coefficient of Permeability, k (cm/sec) Existing Pond Embankment/Slope Material 36 19 64.5 106.0 18.5 102.8 2.6 x 104 Existing Pond Material 50 29 90 97.5 21.5 --- --- The existing in -situ earthen liner embankment material exhibited a falling head permeability coefficient, (k) value of 2.6 x 10-8 cm/sec. It is our opinion the (k) value for the bottom pond liner material, with the soil classification properties as presented above, would be less than (slower than) the embankment/slope material. To develop a similar coefficient of permeability, as indicated above, we recommend placed liner materials are moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the reconditioned or placed materials should be adjusted to be within the range of -2% to +3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Liner materials should be placed in accordance with State of Colorado guidelines. Specific seepage rates would need to be evaluated by others based on pond depth, liner thickness, and material permeability. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. pO p0 L1CF,,9F • 2-Tl i .2.: RIC .vimsf . `�r3 ' .•'�y� eSSIO AI. ��' David A. Richer, P.E. Senior Project Engineer h N POTENTIAL POND AREA 55. 5 POTENTIAL POND AREA NO. 6 POTENTIAL POND AREA NO. 7 POTENTIAL POND AREA N0. 8 POND NO. 2 POND NO.I MW -4 Use letters for sample ID to differentiate with prior samples: A, B, C etc. POTENTIAL POND AREA NO, 4 POTENTIAL POND AREA NO 3 III/light sample here if dry —I and if soil was recently II Select up to 3 locations for Bulk sample, less if soil is consistent across pond 0 150 300 APPROVILITZ sou = 300' Legend APPROXIMATE LOCARON OF MONITORING WELL A APPROXIMATE LOCA DON OF SOIL BORING 0 CORRAL AREA O OFFICE 03 POND STOCK WA TER POND O DUILBINO (TYPICAL) NOTE' DRA PANG BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW AND PUBLIC GEOPOSITIONING SYSTEM (ORE) COORDINATES. ACTUAL CONDITIONS MAY VARY Figure 1 Sample Location Diagram Cactus Hill Ranch 38990 Highway 287 Fort Collins, Colorado Proent Meg, as AoSteed 6y Droll by PJH Cell by. BS Approved by, DMR PARAGON Consulting Group Environmental Engineering and Geohydrology 6901 Broadway Denver. Colorado 00221 Proles( n'o 1007053 Scale: Al Shown file No, 53site Dote Aug 2005 Sheet No: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture -Density Relationship Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 Material Designation: 1095002A -Pond Embankment Sample Location: On -Site Existing Embankment/Slope Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Attgrberg Limits (ASTM D-4318). Liquid Limit: 36 Plastic Limit: 17 Plasticity Index! 19 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 64.5% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: 105.0 PCP Optimum Moisture Content:: 18.5% 10 15 20 Percent Moisture Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2,70 2.60 Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date January 2009 Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Gradation Test 100% li I I' 90% 80% L 70% 60% LL 50% 8 40% o_ 30% 20% 10% 0% I I {�j I I I 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Sieve Size Percent Passing No. 4 93% No. 10 92% No.40 92% No. 200 64.5% Material Designation: 1095002A -Pond Embankment Sample Location: On -Site Existing EmbankmentiSlope Material Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) AASHTO Classification: A-6 Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date January 2009 C4g0) Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture -Density Relationship Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 —i--- 95 90-, 85 80 Material Designation: 1095002A -Pond Bottom Sample Location: On -Site Existing Material - Pond Bottom Description: Brown Fat Clay (CH) 5 10 15 Percent Moisture Atterberq Limits (ASTM D-43181 Liquid Limit: 50 Plastic Limit: 20 Plasticity Index: 29 Percent Passing Na. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 90.2% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: 97.5 pcf Optimum Moisture Content:: 21.5% Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 30 35 40 Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date Jan -09 0% Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Gradation Test ' I I a I 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 0.001 Sieve Size Percent Passing No. 4 100% No. 10 100% No. 40 99% No. 200 90.2% Material Designation: 1095002A -Pond Bottom Sample Location: On -Site Existing Material - Pond Bottom Material Description: Brown Fat Clay (CH) AASHTO Classification: A-7-6 Project: Cactus Hill - Paragon Consulting Group Windsor, Colorado Project No: 1095002A Date Jan -09 U) I- J U) W re I- N W I- J W 2 ce W o. PARAGON CONSULTING GROUP - Cactus Hill Property - Windsor, Colorado 0 \ 0 2 § CD 2 2 2 O O w 0 2 q 0- Z552 @ 0 -O k Ii / » O 0 0. E O 0 2 8 CO CNi & n E -o o- -J O 6 ------- ---Coefficient of Permeability, k = 2.6 x 10-8 cm/s H ( i . ; . ! I ,: i1l ;i� !i) '| . ° | .• � \ . . \ . I• ! |' ||� < I .�|�, 1 I || . i | | | , /! ] , | | ' I l I | . { � • ( � i. I1 !.� : � ; , ! • . | | i | ) | }�� !.] A� ( E !. , � d\ 7 a) 2 U) E k _cm E w 0 11 E X LU U Q ro E Ocia O �� 0 O >+ co E o .OO § ./ § z .0) 2 U) 0 . ? . 'L URCR b 2 co IM ( INSTALL CLAY LINER TO THE HIGHEST ELEVATION THAT COULD BE UNDERWATER TED APPROXIMATE EXISTING CONTOUR POND LINER 1 -FOOT THICK COMPACTED CLAY LINER TED Example Section SCALE l"=50' (VERTICAL EXAGGERATION 3X( TOO = TO BE DETERMINED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TED Example Section Simon Contractors Stormwater Detention Ponds Project Mngr: DMR Designed by: Drown by: PJ N. Checked by BS Approved by: DMR PARAGON Consulting Group Environmental Engineering, Water Resources and Geohydrology L103 Oak Park Drive # l l0 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Project No: 1017058 Scale: As Shown Pile No: 58ex-sec Dote: Dec 15, 2017 Sheet No: Standard Operating Procedure For Impoundment Cleaning and Liner Protection Simon Contractors Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants 8449 County Road 80.5 Weld County, Colorado Fill-in the table below with the impoundment identification; an estimate of the length, width and depth; procedure used to clean the impoundment; and the measure(s) taken to protect the impoundment liner. Select all that apply from List 1 and List two 2 for liner protection methods that best match your operation and fill-in the chart with the corresponding number from lists 1 and 2. For methods not on the list, list "other" and explain below. Impoundment Name or Description Type of Liner(from Estimated Dimensions (length, width and depth) in feet Removal Method(s) List 1 below) Liner Protection Method(s) (from List 2 below) Cleaning Frequency List 1 — Removal Methods List 2 — Liner Protection Methods 1. Cleaning not needed 1. Remove teeth from bucket or 2. Mechanical Equipment (select all that implement apply) a. Backhoe 2. Add protective lip to bucket or implement b. Excavator c. Loader 3. Continual visual inspection used during pumping or agitation 3. Biological Treatment 4. Use a liner that will not erode during 4. Dredging/Bucket cleaning 5. Suction 5. Partial cleaning (explain below - e.g. 6. Pumping* a. With agitation will remove 50% or to a depth not more than 6 inches above the liner) b. Without agitation 6. Other: 7. Other: *If the facility chooses pumping (List 1, items 6a and 6b) as an option for sediment removal, the pipe inlet must be placed at a minimum of six inches above the impoundment liner. Information from the site map or survey will provide the operator with the impoundment depth and the operator can then measure the length of the pipe and place the inlet appropriately. Initial Standard Operating Procedure for Impoundment Cleaning and Liner Protection Simon Contractors Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants December 18, 2017 Page 2 Please initial below for how the top of the liner will be identified prior to a sediment removal event to ensure liner integrity is protected. The facility will identify the top of the liner by surveying or measuring the total depth of the impoundment. A copy of the survey or site map with the measurements for each impoundment(s) will be kept with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Initial Or A staff gauge is installed in the impoundment(s) that indicates the top of the lagoon liner. Initial Please initial each item below. The facility will retain a copy of the SOP on site. The facility will update the SOP if a new impoundment is constructed, if a different liner material is used, if the cleaning method(s) is changed and/or the liner protection method(s) is changed. Initial After cleaning each impoundment the operator will conduct a visual inspection, document that this approved SOP was followed and notify the facility within 30 days of the removal event if this SOP is not followed. Initial (BS3)N:120171PROJECTS110170581GEOTECH AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR POND LINER\1017058 SIMONS IMPOUNDMENT SOP 171218.DOCX FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY LLC December 26, 2017 Mr. Kenneth Lind Lind, Ottenhoff & Root LLP 355 Eastman Park Drive, Suite 200 Windsor, Colorado 80550 RE: Severance Ready Mix & Asphalt Plants Diminution Study Dear Mr. Lind: At your request, I have studied and analyzed paired sales data to determine whether market evidence demonstrates any diminution in real estate values caused by proximity to industrial gravel and asphalt batch plants similar in intensity to those proposed by Simon Contractors, Inc. and related to USR17-0043, Severance Ready Mix & Asphalt Plants, which is located east of Colorado State Highway 257 on the south side of Weld County Road 80.5 in Weld County, Colorado. This report is intended to be used by Simon Contractors, Inc. officials to address the concerns of the residents in proximity to the project and county officials regarding any potential diminution, or loss in property values resulting from the planned project. Analysis of the paired sales data and confirmations with market participants provided support for my conclusions regarding whether diminution in value exists that could be directly caused by location stigma resulting from adjacent industrial uses similar to those planned for the Severance Ready Mix & Asphalt Plants. All relevant market data was considered in formulating the conclusions. The consulting report has been prepared in conformance with the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The Severance Ready Mix & Asphalt Plants facility is located on Weld County Road 80.5, approximately one-half mile south of Colorado State Highway 14 and adjacent to and east of State Highway 257. Planned uses include permanent asphalt and ready -mix concrete plants, office and shop buildings, truck and employee parking, crushing and screening, as well as material stock piles. This facility will provide asphalt and ready -mix concrete products including crushed stone, sand, gravel, and recycled asphalt to public and private Weld County and Northern Colorado customers. W. West Foster, MAI, CRE, SR/WA ♦ Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA Jon M. Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA ♦ Michael Smith, MAI ♦ Christine Antonio SR/WA Certified. General Real Estate Appraisers • 910 54[h Avenue, Suite 210, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Phone (970) 352-1117 • FAX (970) 323-2753 Mr. Kenneth Lind Page 2 December 26, 2017 The first subdivision chosen for analysis and thus first sale in each paired set is within what is considered similar proximity to an existing industrial facility, or other more intense use that could be considered to result in the perception of location stigma. The second and third sales in each paired set are physically similar single- family homes that are removed from any use that is considered to cause location stigma. These paired sets are presented in the consulting report. Thousands of homes throughout Northern Colorado have been constructed and sold in proximity to industrial uses, gravel mines, asphalt batch plants, concrete batch plants, railways, and other uses similar in intensity to those planned for the Severance Ready Mix & Asphalt Plants project. Analysis of the paired sales data revealed very similar sale prices per square foot for single-family homes located in and out of proximity to more intense industrial uses similar to those planned. Therefore, it is unlikely that the completion of the Severance Ready Mix & Asphalt Plants project will result in a diminution in value with regard to future sale prices of single-family homes. Respectively submitted. Michael A. Smith, MAI CO Certification #CG 1000 }6005 Poudre F \Va11e\y _ October 4, 2017 Simon Contractors 3950 JFK Parkway Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: SIMON CONTRACTORS CEMENT PLANT AT HWY 257 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 80.5. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc. (Association) is ready, willing, and able to serve all electrical loads within our certificated service territory subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Association. The person(s) signing any contract(s) and or easement(s) grants to the Association the right to ingress and egress for meter readers, tree trimmers, engineers, line personnel, or any agents of the Association for the purpose of reading meters, engineering services, line repair, maintenance, tree trimming, and/or right-of-way clearing as deemed necessary by the Association. If you have any further questions, please call our office. Sincerely, Ryan Powell Senior Distribution Designer Poudre Valley REA 17649 REA Pkwy Fort Collins, CO 80527 970-282-6432 I www.pvrea.com Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association • 7649 REA Parkway • Fort Collins • Colorado • 80528 • 970-226-1234 P.O. Box 272550, Fort Collins, CO 80527-2550 • www.pvrea.com • pvrea@pvrea.com Your Touchstone Energy Cooperative ?O.' Poudre� Valley �.EA, December 26, 2017 Tetra Tech 1900 S Sunset St, Suite 1 E Longmont, CO 80501 Re: Power lines on north side of WCR 80.5 Jeffrey Butson, Thank you for contacting us about the road widening you are proposing on WCR 80.5. Poudre Valley REA has a double circuit overhead distribution line on the north side of the road. This line can be relocated if needed. There would need to be new easements obtained for the power line to run in and the cost of the relocation would be the responsibility of the applicant. The plans submitted to PVREA are too preliminary to do a cost estimate or give a construction schedule but are adequate to understand the basic scope of the project. PVREA should be able to relocate the lines without any significant impacts to our ability to serve the loads in the area. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. My direct line is (970) 282-6436. Sincerely, Matt Organ Distribution Design Supervisor Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association • 7649 REA Parkway • Fort Collins • Colorado • 80528 • 970-226-1234 P.O. Box 272550, Fort Collins, CO 80527-2550 • www.pvrea.com • pvrea@pvrea.com Your Touchstone Energy' Cooperative t. (mJ TETRA TECH TO: Weld County Planning Department 1555 North 17th AVenue Greeley, Colorado 80632 ATTN: Grading Permit Applications PHONE: 970-353-6100 ❑ As Requested D For Approval METHOD: ❑x TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 8, 2017 FROM: Jeffrey Butson, P.E. CC: PROJECT: Cactus Hill Asphalt Plant JOB #: 133-01756-17001 ❑ For Review/Comments ❑ For Your Use Standard Mail FedEx: Saver Priority Overnight ■ Standard Overnight ■ 2 -Day ■ ■ Messenger Other: ENCLOSED 1 - Grading Permit Application for Tempoary Asphalt Plant If enclosures are not as listed, please notify us promptly. REMARKS Asphalt plant is temporary. Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled on site. The asphalt plant will be set on the stripped grades. Tetra Tech 1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I -E, Longmont, CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: (970)353-6100 Fax: (970)304-6498 Applicant Name John Pinello/Brett Baker Company Simon Contractors Address 1103 Old Town Lane, Suite 201A city Cheyenne State WY zip 82009 Phone Business Phone 307-772-3200 E-mail Signature GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Property Owner (If different than Applicant) Cactus Hill Ranch Co. Name Address P.O. Box 692 E-mail JPinello@simoncontractors.com Project Location Job Site Address parcel 0705 16 0 000 54 Section/Township/Range 16-T7N-R67W City Windsor State CO zip 80550 Parcel Number 0705 16 0 000 54 Access Location: Site Accesses onto CR 80.5 (East, West, North, South) of CR SH 257 Project Information Is this a Use by Right or Planning and Zoning Case? ®Use by Right Planning Land Use Case # (if applicable) ()Planning and Zoning Case Is this in a Floodplain (verify with Planning Department)? (Yes -No) If yes enter your permit number (FHDP) ft _ Description of Work Being Done Temporary Asphalt Batch Plant for CDOT Project Construction Start Date As early as May 15 Finish Date within 90 days of construction start Acreage Disturbed by Project: Acres Required Submittal Documents ❑ Grading Permit Application Form • Plans: Scanned electronic (pdf) or hard copy of 11"x17" set (wet ink stamped and signed by Colorado PE) • Grading Plan — contours labeled with elevations show any ponds or ditches • Erosion & Sediment Control Plan -- showing placement of all BMP's to be installed • Typical BMP Installation Details & Notes —for all BMP's to be installed Construction Stormwater permit from Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) El Fee (To Weld County): 1-5 Acres/ $50 5.1 - 20 Acres/$100 20.1 Acres or Greater/$200 + $1 per acre over 20 Pursuant to Weld County Code Section 8-12-60, the Weld County Department of Planning reserves the right to deny issuance of a Grading Permit to Applicant if the Applicant has not received final approval of any required land use application and/or prior to the satisfaction by Applicant of the terms and conditions of any approved land use application. By submitting this Grading Permit application, the undersigned Applicant, under penalty of perjury, verifies that; (1) they have received all pages of the Grading Permit application; (2) they have read and understand all of the permit requirements and provisions; (3) they have the authority to sign for and bind the Applicant if the Applicant is a corporation or other entity; (4) by virtue of their signature, the Applicant is, upon issuance of a Grading Permit by Weld County, bound by and agrees to comply with all Grading Permit requirements and conditions and all applicable Federal, State, and Weld County statutes, rules, and regulations. Applicant Signature G r Printed Name 1dhq 7 f' e /IP Date e/20 Revised 3/21/2014 COLORADO Department of Public Health Er Environment Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado John Pinello, PM Simon Contractors 4819 S Industrial Svc Rd Cheyenne, WY 82003 DATE: October 24, 2O14 MEMO RE: Certification, Colorado Discharge Permit System Permit Number COR900000 Certification Number: COR901252 Simon Contractors - Simon Contractors Portable Plant 1 WQCD DIVISION CONTACTS Michelle DeLaria Permit Writer 303-692-3615 or Debbie Jessop Tech IV 303-692-3590 Karen Harford 303-691-4019 Loretta Houk 303-692-3531 ATTACHMENTS Certification C0R901252 CDPS General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Non -Extractive Industrial Activity Received u 2014 ReCeivect OCT 3 0 2014 The Water Quality Control Division (the Division) has reviewed the application submitted for the Simon Contractors Portable Plant 1 facility (the facility) and determined that it qualifies for coverage under the CDPS General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Non -Extractive Industrial Activity (the stormwater permit). DISCHARGE SPECIFIC INFORMATION Stormwater from the facility discharges to State Waters, statewide: a specific receiving stream segment cannot be identified. In accordance with Part III.D.3 of the stormwater permit, permit certifications for mobile asphalt batch plants (i.e., SIC code 2951) may be issued for a specific plant, with the equipment defined as the facility, which allows existing batch plants to move around the state without re -applying for permit coverage at each new location. Permittees must notify the Division in writing each time the mobile plant is moved, and must meet ail permit requirements, terms and conditions for each location. BASIS FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE MONITORING As provided by Part 1.1 of the stormwater permit, the permittee must monitor stormwater discharges from industrial activities conducted at the facility. Parts 1.1.1 through 1.1.5 of the stormwater permit identify the five types of required monitoring, one or more of which may apply to the discharge authorized by the stormwater permit as identified in the enclosed permit certification for the permitted facility. BENCHMARK MONITORING The permit requires benchmark monitoring of stormwater discharges from the facility to confirm that protection of water quality is provided. Part III of the stormwater permit provides the specific benchmark parameters and values applicable to such discharges. BASIS FOR SITE -SPECIFIC PARAMETERS The certification authorizes discharges statewide. There is potential for stormwater runoff to discharge to segments listed as impaired (Regulation 93) for selenium. The Division made a qualitative reasonable potential determination based on the potential for aggregates and other earth materials at the site to be a source of selenium in the discharge. Therefore, site - specific sampling and reporting for potentially dissolved selenium is required, based on water quality standards for the receiving water. DMR DATA In general, the Division will use the benchmark and site -specific benchmark DMR data to support development and implementation of TMDLs, and to determine whether the potential exists for the discharge to contribute to and/or cause an exceedance of any water quality standards. Additional information from in -stream monitoring, inspections, or other sources may also be used in making this determination. 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692.2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Larry Woik, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Page 2 FEE INFORMATION The Annual Fee for this certification is $185 [Category 7, Subcategory 10 Industrial Activities Stormwater only, per CRS 25- 8-502] is invoiced every July for previously permitted facilities. Do Not Pay This Now. The initial invoice will be prorated and sent to the legal contact shortly. GENERAL INFORMATION • Changes to the certification: Any changes that need to be made to the certification page — changes in sampling location, monitoring requirements, etc., must be submitted using the "Permit and Certification Modification form" available on the Division's website, www.coloradowaterpermits.com, and signed by the legal contact. • Monitoring and requirements: Monitoring must occur at the frequency established in the permit certification. Weather conditions may not always allow the permittee to collect a sample during business hours; however, the monitoring frequency established in the permit certification must be met. Please note that all discharges are required to conduct visual monitoring. Certain facilities are also required to conduct chemical monitoring. For those required to conduct chemical monitoring, the Division strongly recommends that the permittee contact a lab prior to setting up a sampling program. • Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and Annual Reports: DMR forms will be mailed to the permittee. The permittee shall establish and maintain records that identify, among other information, the exact location(s) where monitoring is conducted. DMRs must be submitted quarterly as long as the certification is in effect. One DMR form is required for each sampling point. The permittee shall provide the Division with any additional monitoring data for the permitted discharge that is collected for entities other than the Division. Please contact the Division (303-692-3517) if DMR forms have not been received. Additionally, the permittee must complete an Annual Report form and submit it to the Division by March 31 of the following year. This form is available on the Division's web site (www.coloradowaterpermits.com). • Termination requirements: The permittee may initiate termination of permit coverage by submitting a "CDPS Permits and Authorization Termination Form." This form is available on the Division's web site (www.coloradowaterpermits.com) and must be signed by the legal contact. CERTIFICATION RECORDS INFORMATION: The table below provides the information contained in Division records for this certification. Any changes to the contacts listed below must be provided to the Division on a "Notice of Change of Contacts" form, and must be signed by the legal contact. This form is available on the Division's website at www.coloradowaterpermits.com. Facility: Simon Contractors Portable Plant 1 County: Statewide Industrial Activities portable asphalt plant SIC Code 2951 Legal Contact Receives all legal documentation, pertaining to the permit certification. [including invoice; is contacted for any questions relating to the facility; and receives DMRs as appropriate ] John Pinello, PM Phone number: 307-632-7900 Simon Contractors Email: jpinello@simoncontractors.com 4819 S Industrial Svc Rd Cheyenne, WY 82003 Facility Contact (contacted for general inquiries regarding the facility): John Pinello,PM Phone number: 307-632-7900 Simon Contractors Email: jpinello@simoncontractors.com 4819 S Industrial Svc Rd Cheyenne, WY 82003 Billing Contact (receives the invoice pertaining to the permit certification]: John Pinello, PM Phone number: 307-632-7900 Simon Contractors Email: jpinello@simoncontractors.com 4819 S Industrial Svc Rd Cheyenne, WY 82003 DMR Contact : Jason Williams, Asst Safety Dir Phone number: 605-787-3980 Simon Contractors Email: jilliams@simoncontractors.com 2391 Commerce Rd Rapid City, SD 57709 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COR900000 STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH NON -EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Certification Number: COR901252 This Certification to Discharge specifically authorizes: Simon Contractors to discharge stormwater from the facility identified as Simon Contractors Portable Plant 1 to: - State waters Facility Located Statewide All discharges must comply with the lawful requirements of federal agencies municipalities, counties, drainage districts and other local agencies regarding any discharges to storm drain systems, conveyances, or other water courses under their jurisdiction. REQUIRED MONITORING A. VISUAL MONITORING Part 1.1.1 (Quarterly) B. BENCHMARK MONITORING Part 1.1.2 Sector(s) D1 Subsector Parameter Benchmark Monitoring Concentration Monitoring Frequency Sample Type D1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 00530 100 mg/L Qua rte rly grab C. ELG MONITORING Part 1.1.3 Sector Parameter Daily maximum 30 day avg Frequency Technique D Oil & Grease 03582 15.0 mg/L 10 mg/L annual grab D pH 00400 6.0 - 9.0 s.u. annual grab D Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 00530 23.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L annual grab D. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS MONITORING Part I.1.4 Discharges authorized under this permit must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards at the point of discharge (end -of pipe). Parameter Units Site -specific Benchmark Values Monitoring Frequency Sample Type Selenium (Potentially Dissolved) 01323 ugh Report Quarterly Grab Certification Issued: 10/24/2014 Effective: 10/24/2014 Expiration Date: 6/30/2017 This certification under the permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. The certification holder is legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit. Signed, Kenan Diker, Unit Manager Water Quality Control Division STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Division CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COR900000 FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH NON -EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, (25-8-101 et seq., CRS, 1973 as amended), owners or operators of stormwater discharges associated with non -extractive industrial activity, as defined in this permit, are authorized to discharge from authorized locations throughout the State of Colorado to specified surface waters of the state, in accordance with the eligibility and permit application requirements, effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, inspection requirements, and other conditions set forth in this general permit. This permit is organized as follows: Part I (A -L) Part II Part III Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Requirements applicable to all Industrial Sectors Standard Terms and Conditions Sector -Specific Requirements for Industrial Activity Facilities and Activities Covered Information Summaries Definitions and Abbreviations The applicant may demand an adjudicatory hearing within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of the final permit determination, per the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, 61.7(1). Should the applicant choose to contest any of the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements or other conditions contained herein, the applicant must comply with Section 24-4-104 CRS and the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations. Failure to contest any such effluent limitation, monitoring requirement, or other condition, constitutes consent to the condition by the Applicant. This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, June 30, 2017. Modification Issued and Signed this 1st day of October, 2012 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Janet Kieler, Permits Section Manager Water Quality Control Division Permit Actions Summary: Modification #1 - Issued October 1, 2012 , Effective October 1, 2012 (Part I.e) Originally Issued March 7, 2012 and Effective July 1, 2012 PART I Page 2 of 114 Permit No.: COR900000 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT 6 1. Facilities Covered 6 a. Allowable Stormwater Discharges 6 b. Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges6 c. Emergency Fire Fighting 7 2. Limitations on Coverage 7 a. Discharges of non-stormwater7 b. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. 7 c. Discharges Currently Covered by Another Permit. 7 d. Discharges Currently covered by a Division Low Risk Guidance document. 7 e. Stormwater Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations Guidelines7 f. Discharges to Waters Designated as Outstanding waters for Antidegradation Purposes. 8 3. Obtaining and maintaining Authorization under this permit 8 a. Application Requirements S b. Permit Certification Procedures 8 c. Alternative permits 8 d. Permit Expiration, and Continuation 9 4. Permit Termination Procedures 9 a. Submitting a Notice of Termination request 9 b. Conditions for a Notice of Termination 9 5. Transfer of Permit Coverage 10 B. PERMIT COMPLIANCE 10 C. CONTROL MEASURES 10 1. Installation and implementation specifications 11 2. Maintenance of Control Measures and Associated Documentation 11 D. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 11 1. Practice -based Effluent Limitations 11 a. Minimize Exposure 11 b. Good Housekeeping 11 c. Maintenance of Control Measures 11 d. Spill Prevention and Response Procedures 12 e. Erosion and Sediment Controls 12 f. Management of Runoff 12 g. Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt 12 h. Sector Specific Practice -based Effluent Limits 12 i. Employee Training 12 j. Non-Stormwater Discharges 13 k. Waste, Garbage and Floatable Debris 13 1. Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials13 2. Numeric Effluent Limitations based on Effluent Limitations Guidelines 13 3. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations 13 a. Water Quality Standards 13 b. Additional Requirements for Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters 13 c. Additional Requirements for Discharges to Waters Designated as Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species14 d. Additional Requirements for New or Increased Discharges to Reviewable Waters 14 E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)—GENERAL SWMP REQUIREMENTS 14 F. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)—SPECIFIC SWMP REQUIREMENTS 16 1. SWMP Administrator 16 2. Facility Description 16 3. Facility Map 16 4. Facility Inventory and Assessment of Pollutant Sources 17 5. Description of Control Measures 18 6. Additional Control Measure Requirements 18 7. Inspection Procedures and Documentation 19 8. Monitoring Procedures and Documentation 19 9. Corrective Action Documentation 20 10. Natural Background Pollutant Levels 20 G. INSPECTIONS 20 1. Inspection Frequency and Personnel 20 5/8/2017 9:49:12 AM - P:1017561133-01756-170011CADISHEETFILESIEROSION CONTROL EXHIBIT.DWG - CUMMINS, JOHN F E D C B A OE OE OE OE OF OF OE OF 1 --5193 - _ ---5192--- on -- 5189- 5188 5187 --- 5.1.65 Uj -TOPSOIL STOCKPILE / SCREENING BERM - - --5185 5184 -5183 r m z n X X.XXX,x ASPHALT PLANT TOPSOIL TO BE STRIPPED AND STOCKPILED CWA) co STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR AUTHORIZED AGENTS SHALL REMOVE ALL SEDIMENT, MUD, CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, OR OTHER POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED TO OR, ACCUMULATE IN, THE FLOW LINES OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE COUNTY AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. SAID REMOVAL SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A TIMELY MANNER. 2. THIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED AS PART OF AN APPLICATION FOR A STORMWATER PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY ASPHALT PLANT FILED WITH COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT (CDPHE) AND WELD COUNTY. ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED OF THE OWNER AND HIS OR HER AGENTS DUE TO UNFORSEEN EROSION PROBLEMS OR IF THE SUBMITTED PLAN DOES NOT FUNCTION AS INTENDED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PLAN SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION OF THE PERMIT HOLDER AND THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PLAN IS PROPERLY COMPLETED AND THE PERMIT IS RELEASED. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT SEDIMENT, DEBRIS AND ALL OTHER POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DURING ALL DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING, BORING, GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR REMEDIATION OF ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT WATERWAYS, WETLANDS, ETC., RESULTING FROM WORK DONE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE, INSTALL, AND MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY "BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES" (BMP) AS INDICATED IN THE APPROVED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. OR AS FIELD CONDITIONS DICTATE. 5. THE OWNER, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, GRADING CONTRACTOR AND/OR THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL LOADS OF CUT AND FILL MATERIAL IMPORTED TO OR EXPORTED FROM THIS SITE SHALL BE PROPERLY COVERED TO PREVENT LOSS OF THE MATERIAL DURING TRANSPORT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. 6. SOILS THAT WILL BE STOCKPILED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM WIND AND WATER EROSION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF STOCKPILE CONSTRUCTION. IF STOCKPILES ARE LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DRAINAGEWAY, ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT CONTROLS SUCH AS TEMPORARY DIKES OR SILT FENCE SHALL BE REQUIRED. 7. APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR FOR THE DURATION OF THIS PROJECT. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM A BMP WHEN THE SEDIMENT OR DEBRIS ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE FUNCTIONING OF THE BMP. 8. MODIFICATION/TERMINATION OF A STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THE OWNER, CONTRACTOR OR THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS SHALL REQUIRE TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF AND APPROVAL FROM WELD COUNTY. 9. MATERIAL STOCKPILE & CONTRACTOR MOBILIZATION LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE . EXACT LOCATIONS WILL BE THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONTRACTOR. LOCATIONS WILL NEED TO BE SURROUNDED BY SILT FENCE OR NEED TO UTILIZE ANOTHER BMP TO MINIMIZE THE MOVEMENT OF SEDIMENT AND POLLUTANTS. 10. ALL DISTURBED SOIL SHALL BE WETTED PERIODICALLY TO PREVENT SILT POLLUTION FROM BECOMING AIRBORNE AND MIGRATING INTO DRAINAGE WAYS. 11. SEE SHEET EC -701 FOR EROSION CONTROL DETAILS. 12. RECLAMATION OPERATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO RECLAMATION PLAN (BY OTHERS) dS ~— 5192— _ _ _ 1st_. — -5189_ 519p_ --5184_ 1—:._5188 --5187- _ --5186---� --5185- 0 50' 100' SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND: 200' x x SF x x CWA EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS (5' INT.) EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS (1' INT.) EXISTING SECTION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS LINE EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD SILT FENCE TOPSOIL TO BE STRIPPED AND STOCKPILED TOPSOIL STOCKPILE / SCREENING BERM DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA 519 5181 -5189 - --5188-- - - 5187 _ 5186 --5j85� `5784_ _5183_ ,518 TETRA TECH www.tetratech.com ILI acn ✓ Lc) o r -7_ (I) - O Iti N a) O Q (Ucy, u, C cp C O LL = E �o U)) oJ N- o N- o - r v ai c O o_ m DESCRIPTION w I- O 2 C� o c E o '5 U U O E s 00 U � o 0 E cn co Z CO W aW O5 W W 0 Q W W u) a> - LL m W co GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No.: 133-01756-17001 Designed By: JDFC Drawn By: JDFC Checked By: JAB EC -700 Copyright: Tetra Tech Bar Measures 1 inch 5/8/2017 9:49:14 AM - P:1017561133-01756-170011CADISHEETFILESIEROSION CONTROL EXHIBIT.DWG - CUMMINS, JOHN F E D C B A 1. SET POSTS. /7 '-: ," -------' ///��ir,-//i /I 3. ATTACH FILTER MATERIAL TO POSTS OR INSERT SEWN POCKETS OVER POSTS AND EXTEND IT INTO THE TRENCH. 2. EXCAVATE A 4"x4' TRENCH UPSLOPE ALONG THE LINE OF UPRIGHTS. 4. FINISHED SECTION WOODEN O STEEL FENCE POSTS SILT FENCE DETAIL NTS 4 IN. NOTES: FILTER FABRIC, ATTACH APPROX. 4"x4" TRENCH RUNOFF EXSTING GROUND 2 FT MIN. EXCAVATED AREA 1. CONCRETE WASTE SHALL BE PLACED IN A TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITY LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM DRAINAGE WAYS AND INLETS. 2. CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITIES WILL COMPRISE OF AN EXCAVATION WITH EROSION BALES AND CONSTRUCTION FENCES. 3. PROPER SIGNAGE SUCH AS "CONCRETE WASHOUT" OR "CONCRETE RAW WATER DISPOSAL" SHALL BE PLACED NEAR CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITIES. 4. ADDING SOLVENTS, FLOCCULENTS, OR ACID TO WASHWATER IS PROHIBITED. HARD SURFACE PUBLIC ROAD 50' MINIMUM 6" MINIMUM 1-1/2" - 3" ROCK 1/2" - 3/4" FILTER LAYER 2� VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL 0 NTS 15 FT MIN. 3:1 CONCRETE WASHOUT PLAN NTS TOE OF FILL ,2:1 EROSION BALES CONTAINMENT I AREA TETRA TECH www.tetratech.com Lid O CO � Ino as oI--- co N U) O f` ▪ N- 91 O U a). x (R C fO oLL E N CD CO _C C N O L;) O N O ti O CO - CO C) a a) C O L DESCRIPTION Lu I- O 2 n o E co 0 0 U o E U o oU U -o � a) o E U) CO I— co Z W 0- W O 5 W W in tY ❑ < W J_ W co LL ▪ m w (/) EROSION CONTROL w 0 Project No.: 133-01756-17001 Designed By: JDFC Drawn By: JDFC Checked By: JAB EC -701 Copyright: Tetra Tech Bar Measures 1 inch I _ I TETRA TECH December 22, 2017 Mr. John Pinello Construction Manager Simon Contractors Company 6215 Clear Creek Parkway Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007 RE: Air Quality Permitting Severance Asphalt and Ready Mixed Concrete Plants Dear John: In addressing responses demonstrating how Simon Contractors will meet Development Standards 13 and 14 as proposed through Use by Special Review, USR17-0043, Tetra Tech is preparing technical documentation in support of the submittal of an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN) and application for a Construction Permit to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Preparation of the documentation requires the development of a detailed emissions inventory, an evaluation of applicable Federal and State requirements including the need for air emissions controls, completion of CDPHE APEN and Construction Permit application forms, and a dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards. This technical support document will be made available for review by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in advance of the January 10, 2018, public hearing, and will demonstrate Simon's commitment to compliance with Federal and State air quality requirements. The technical support document will include a detailed inventory of air emissions for point and fugitive emission sources at the site, including the HMA drum mixer, HMA storage silos and loadout, asphalt storage, concrete batch plant (ready -mix), combustion equipment, aggregate handling, and vehicle travel on site roadways. Both criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) will be calculated for each source. Criteria pollutants include volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NO4, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM). Air emissions controls, such as the baghouse, the operation of the concrete batch plant within a building, and the application of water to reduce fugitive emissions, are accounted for when preparing the emissions inventory. The emissions inventory is used to determine which Federal and State regulations apply to the facility, and in support of the dispersion modeling analysis. The technical support document further identifies air pollution controls to be installed at the site, specifically: 0 A baghouse to control PM emissions from the hot mix asphalt operation's drum mixer; 0 A blue smoke recovery system to minimize visible emissions and odors from the hot mix asphalt operations, which will prevent nuisance conditions and meet regulatory visible emissions standards; I TETRA TECH A building housing the concrete batch plant operations, specifically elevated storage bins, weigh hopper loading and truck loading, to prevent transport of visible emissions off site; and Bin vent filters to minimize emissions from dry material silo loading operations. In addition to the emissions controls identified in the technical support document for the hot mix asphalt and concrete batch plants, the technical support document will also address Best Management Practices for the mitigation of fugitive dust. CDPHE-issued permits explicitly prohibit off -property transport of visible emissions from processing activities and from haul roads. Fugitive dust mitigation measures will specifically include the following: Watering as necessary of sand, aggregate, and recycled material storage areas; Watering during loading of materials in sand, aggregate, and recycled material storage areas; Watering of recycled materials prior to crushing and screening operations; Washing of vehicle tires as needed prior to site departure to prevent trackout to public roadways; Use of pre -washed aggregate and sand when practical; 0 Adoption of procedures to prevent spillage of materials on roadways, such as covered trucks; Use of paved haul roads on the project site; Vacuum sweeping and watering of paved haul roads; Limitation of vehicle speeds on the site to 10 miles per hour or less. Construction of pavement on Weld County Road 80.5 to 50' beyond the eastern site entrance The technical support document will further evaluate the applicability of Federal and State air quality regulations to the Project based on the calculated emissions and the equipment proposed. The technical support document will further include an evaluation that demonstrates the Project will comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are established for the criteria air pollutants by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act to protect public health and public welfare. Section 302(h) of the Clean Air Act defines "welfare" to include effects on soils, water, crops, wildlife, weather, damage to and deterioration of property, effects on economic values, and personal comfort and well-being. The site is located in an area designated as nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS, and attainment for all other criteria pollutants. I TETRA TECH The Clean Air Act requires USEPA to review the NAAQS on a regular basis, and USEPA has progressively promulgated more stringent NAAQS in the years since the Clean Air Act was signed in 1970. CDPHE's dispersion modeling requirements are established to demonstrate that proposed projects will comply with the NAAQS. The CDPHE guidance does presume that air emissions less than specific thresholds will comply with NAAQS without performing dispersion modeling. However, the CDPHE does have discretion to request dispersion modeling even if the emissions are calculated to be less than the thresholds. The technical support document will include an air quality dispersion modeling analysis that demonstrates the Project will comply with the NAAQS. The Construction Permit can only be issued if the dispersion modeling demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS. The CDPHE is entrusted through their review to ensure that the proposed Project will comply with both Federal and State air quality requirements. In addition to CDPHE review, the Construction Permit process provides an opportunity for public review of the Project's air quality impacts. The CDPHE's Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) provides online guidance for public participation in the air permitting process. If the CDPHE finds during their review that the facility will comply with all air quality requirements, they will issue a draft permit for public review. The draft permit will include limitations on emissions and facility operations; requirements for the installation of air emissions control equipment, operation of air emissions control measures, and measurement of air emissions; and obligations for recordkeeping and reporting. Public comments are required to be submitted within 30 days of CDPHE's public posting of the draft permit. The CDPHE considers every received comment from the pubic prior to issuing a final permit. Construction of the facility cannot commence until the final permit has been issued. The technical support document that will be made available for BOCC review prior to the January 10, 2018, public meeting is being prepared to meet the APEN and Construction Permit application submittal requirements of the CDPHE. By providing this rigorous analysis to the BOCC for review, Simon will demonstrate that it is committed to following the rigorous process established by CDPHE to obtain a Construction Permit. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Harrington Senior Environmental Engineer Hello