The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20171397.tiffAppendix B Floodplain Elevations Summary Pubtc R-v:e,c,j Siea`;(1-7 and Ho.tF orQowm.m-i See aISO L 39G I s 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 2017-1397 (11 O 4.1 C O O O O O U C i O Z Bennett Pit CAA Nime F 04 ti ti O N O OD r 0 16116 Bennett Pit Floodplain Elevation Summary .cts O W 0 0 LL L. Ct CD O O Existing to Future Change (feet)* O O O O C0 Ln 0 O 00 O O O d" O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O iiii 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I I Future Base Flood Elevation (feet)* I 4849.63 4847.45 4845.46 4843.41 I 4841.48 00 00 06 Co 00 4837.66_ O Cfl LU Co 00 4831.12 I 4825.74 I 4822.20 4818.05 1 4813.67 I 4808.84 4802.98 4799.50 Existing to Mining Change (feet)* 0OD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O ND 0 0 0 O O O 0 O p O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining Base Flood Elevation (feet)* I 4849.63 I 4847.45 I 4845.46 I 4843.41 I 4841.48 I 4838.88 I 4837.66 4835.60 N I 4825.74 I 4822.20 up I 4813.67 I 4808.84 I 4802.98 I 4799.50 O r 00 r co 0o r co - t NI Base Flood to Floodway Change (feet)* N LID N Cfl Cfl h- Ln N` N` N` O O r N' O) O Ln 0 �- 0 d" 0 NI" 0 Nt 0 r 0 d' 0 d' 0 Nt 0 d' 0 N' 0 Nt 0 0 Ve 0 Nt 0 O 0 Existing .loodway Elevation (feet)* 4847.90 4845.96 I 4843.88 4842.00 I 4839.42 QDr 4831.56 I 4826.19 I 4822.67 I 4818.52 4814.14 CO 00 I 4803.44 I 4799.50 CD O 00 r cd O0 O co 00 00 NT LL LJJ Existing 3se Flood Elevation (feet) * South 4849.63 c aj icr- 4847.45 4845.46 I 4843.47 4841.53 4838.96 IC 00 00 4835.6 4825.74 N (NI 0O 4818.05 I I 4813.67 00 00 O I 4802.98 4799.5 North 4799.50 T r M m 0= * N O �, >_ o 29977.07 29977.07 28500 26500 25313.88 N Cfl 7- 't CD N 20325.92 17500 15000 12500 O O O O O Ln N O O O Lo O O Ln N O O O 0 00 O N N Nt(O N N r Ln N r r CO T- N 0 Upstream Limit Corps Sec 67 HecXS1 HecXS2 HecXS3 HecXS4 HecXS5 HecXS6 HecXS7 HecXS8 HecXS9 HecXS10 HecXS11 HecXS12 HecXS13 HecXS14 I HecXS15 HecXS16 Downstream Limit Corps Sec 66 0 CO 0 0 U a) Q N L 4_, L rn Lowest First Floor Elevation (feet)* 4842.53 I 4839.25 4842.53 I 4842.53 I 4838.70 0 r- 6 7r co it Lowest Adjacent Grade (feet)* 4842.60 4843.95 4840.50 4842.90 4842.90 4838.80 I Highest Adjacent Grade (feet)* 4842.60 I 4844.25 0 Ln O 00 4842.90 I 4842.90 I 4839.20 - Existing ase Flood Elevation (feet)* CO O LD N 00 CO CO 4839.1 4841.53 4841.53 4837.7 r CO 'Cr r CIO C 24260 (9 CU cc 22232 24262 24262 21768.17 a) . 0 U r a) D Asphalt/ Concrete Batch Plant Scale House Lot 2 Lot 3 a) u) D O _INIME r ti 2 +-5 J co co Z O (.0 0 a) a) Q Appendix C HEC-RAS Output `1 l 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 1 29000.00 4839.00 4849.63 4848.26 4849.69 0.000832 5.03 16928.08 6577.63 0.27 Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 2 29000.00 4839.00 4850.10 4848.35 4850.18 0.000811 5.12 14964.39 4611.22 0.27 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 1 29000.00 4837.00 4847.45 4847.62 0.001046 6.23 14472.08 7194.89 0.34 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 2 29000.00 4837.00 4847.90 4848.10 0.001046 6.41 11761.84 3864.43 0.34 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 1 29000.00 4834.00 4845.46 4845.60 0.000789 5.73 17532.84 8247.78 0.30 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 2 29000.00 4834.00 4845.96 4846.10 0.000757 5.78 15085.00 5185.80 0.29 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 1 29000.00 4832.00 4843.47 4843.42 4844.16 0.002374 10.02 9469.72 6396.37 0.52 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 2 29000.00 4832.00 4843.88 4844.71 0.002443 10.41 6762.19 2188.49 0.53 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 1 29000.00 4831.00 4841.53 4841.76 0.001270 6.92 14380.60 7251.95 0.38 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 2 29000.00 4831.00 4842.00 4842.25 0.001249 7.06 12405.42 4920.09 0.38 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 1 29000.00 4829.00 4838.96 4839.15 0.001164 6.42 14766.78 7249.96 0.36 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 2 29000.00 4829.00 4839.42 4839.65 0.001150 6.58 12349.95 4485.55 0.36 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 1 29000.00 4827.00 4837.70 4837.92 0.001191 6.77 13194.17 5592.19 0.37 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 2 29000.00 4827.00 4838.16 4838.42 0.001174 6.91 11548.15 3916.41 0.36 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 1 29000.00 4826.50 4835.60 4835.69 0.000852 5.13 15958.28 6069.76 0.30 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 2 29000.00 4826.50 4836.07 4836.18 0.000830 5.24 14797.31 4908.35 0.30 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 1 29000.00 4821.00 4831.12 4831.64 0.002222 7.55 9116.79 6060.11 0.48 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 2 29000.00 4821.00 4831.56 4832.19 0.002232 7.85 6897.44 2537.53 0.48 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 1 29000.00 4817.00 4825.74 4825.94 0.001204 6.06 13857.63 6631.13 0.36 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 2 29000.00 4817.00 4826.19 4826.43 0.001207 6.27 12204.23 4808.24 0.36 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 1 29000.00 4813.00 4822.20 4822.34 0.001166 5.99 14216.30 6781.01 0.35 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 2 29000.00 4813.00 4822.67 4822.81 0.001166 5.95 12809.95 4740.77 0.34 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 1 29000.00 4809.00 4818.05 4818.21 0.001465 6.20 12587.33 6364.33 0.39 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 2 29000.00 4809.00 4818.52 4818.69 0.001443 6.19 11775.93 4323.56 0.37 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 1 29000.00 4805.00 4813.67 4813.82 0.001252 4.94 13245.62 5975.30 0.35 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 2 29000.00 4805.00 4814.14 4814.31 0.001223 5.13 13474.67 6153.26 0.35 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 1 29000.00 4801.00 4808.84 4809.07 0.001698 6.67 12348.28 6741.20 0.42 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 2 29000.00 4801.00 4809.33 4809.58 0.001634 6.81 11314.15 5062.67 0.42 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 1 29000.00 4799.00 4802.98 4803.04 0.000731 2.79 15657.95 5342.36 0.25 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 2 29000.00 4799.00 4803.44 4803.50 0.000722 2.97 15195.83 4686.50 0.25 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 1 29000.00 4794.55 4799.50 4798.57 4799.68 0.002324 5.80 11040.19 5707.33 0.46 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 2 29000.00 4794.55 4799.50 4798.84 4799.87 0.004159 7.73 8038.76 4347.20 0.61 -RAS Plan: Existing River: S Platte Reach: Alignment - Sout Reach River Sta Profile W.S. Elev Prof Delta WS E.G. Elev Top Wdth Act Q Left Q Channel Q Right Enc Sta L Ch Sta L Ch Sta R Enc Sta R (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (it) (ft) (ft) Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 1 4849.63 4849.69 6577.63 22135.89 1552.95 5311.16 4871.24 4900.28 Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 2 4850.10 0.48 4850.18 4611.22 23775.93 1649.84 3574.23 1254.68 4871.24 4900.28 5904.46 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 1 4847.45 4847.62 7194.89 18587.85 6478.08 3934.07 6813.27 6912.74 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 2 4847.90 0.45 4848.10 3864.43 19469.68 6950.19 2580.14 4050.39 6813.27 6912.74 8019.25 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 1 4845.46 4845.60 8247.78 17415.27 6034.38 5550.35 6636.20 6728.02 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 2 4845.96 0.49 4846.10 5185.80 18374.27 6339.63 4286.09 3033.43 6636.20 6728.02 8219.23 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 1 4843.47 4844.16 6396.37 13607.72 11923.93 3468.35 5653.96 5757.75 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 2 4843.88 0.41 4844.71 2188.49 13586.01 12829.36 2584.63 3381.86 5653.96 5757.75 5887.15 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 1 4841.53 4841.76 7251.95 12885.43 7517.14 8597.43 5111.35 5214.51 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 2 4842.00 0.47 4842.25 4920.09 12974.97 8010.96 8014.07 2512.43 5111.35 5214.51 7454.56 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 1 4838.96 4839.15 7249.96 7363.36 7397.34 14239.30 5698.23 5813.94 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 2 4839.42 0.46 4839.65 4485.55 6249.79 7930.48 14819.73 4042.31 5698.23 5813.94 8551.48 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 1 4837.70 4837.92 5592.19 12595.99 7546.91 8857.10 5616.58 5720.81 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 2 4838.16 0.47 4838.42 3916.41 12734.20 8042.99 8222 82 3716.21 5616.58 5720.81 7805.79 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 1 4835.60 4835.69 6069.76 16876.81 4606.85 7516.33 6088.13 6186.94 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 2 4836.07 0.48 4836.18 4908.35 18222.57 4952.14 5825.29 2396.05 6088.13 6186.94 7317.46 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 1 4831.12 4831.64 6060.11 6416.13 16149.29 6434.58 3779.50 4055.29 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 2 4831.56 0.44 4832.19 2537.53 4687.40 17760.18 6552.42 2728.62 3779.50 4055.29 5314.45 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 1 4825.74 4825.94 6631.13 11347.33 8780.19 8872.48 5223.39 5389.19 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 2 4826.19 0.45 4826.43 4808.24 11081.19 9556.07 8362.75 2499.03 5223.39 5389.19 7356.97 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 1 4822.20 4822.34 6781.01 22033.22 4610.54 2356.23 7144.12 7227.75 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 2 4822.67 0.46 4822.81 4740.77 24190.97 4809.03 2433.94 7144.12 7227.75 7227.75 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 1 4818.05 4818.21 6364.33 22253.31 5053.77 1692.93 7602.21 7703.56 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 2 4818.52 0.48 4818.69 4323.56 23657.79 5342.21 3051.84 7602.21 7703.56 7703.56 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 1 4813.67 4813.82 5975.30 16285.14 8865.98 3848.88 8369.07 8661.51 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 2 4814.14 0.47 4814.31 6153.26 16758.09 9910.78 2331.13 2544.62 8369.07 8661.51 9104.79 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 1 4808.84 4809.07 6741.20 14969.53 7600.88 6429.58 7213.66 7359.05 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 2 4809.33 0.48 4809.58 5062.67 15454.04 8238.92 5307.04 2904.78 7213.66 7359.05 9349.93 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 1 4802.98 4803.04 5342.36 27145.79 1673.69 180.53 7520.75 7672.12 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 2 4803.44 0.46 4803.50 4686.50 27011.62 1988.38 2735.36 7520.75 7672.12 7672.12 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 1 4799.50 4799.68 5707.33 22343.51 6558.87 97.62 7883.19 8111.83 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 2 4799.50 0.00 4799.87 4347.20 20249.68 8750.33 1832.97 7883.19 8111.83 8111.83 -a C ^� W —I N LL Q O W 4 N LL a.. ( '" r LL /a. CJ W r LL N LL - a. L U r U w L O p C ■ 0 L C9 w r.r.c (I) Y (o m C E E . 0 O L5 C w SD C J 4 (\I LL a. LLJ N LL 0- N- LL a. W r LL a ■ D 03 C U) = -Y Cco L C9 COo C E n O c w C V CV N r r _0 03 N C LL LL LL LL c U) L C 4 Q � 0- CL a- (i) ■ O t-) 3 w 9 c) w 5 m o C w .7O C d -) i0_ N Z LL (9w r LL a 0w N LL Cl-te W r LL CL 4_ r LL CL -4-'C U a3 C (I) ■ CO Y m C E n o 0 0 C w V C N LL N U re"— U. LL "0 C (I) C N E C J 4 w > w f ■ C O ca m 0 2 0 C w C -a N N r r -0 as N C LL LL L.L. LL C (I) n O) 4 Cl- I Q- 0.. E O o J in in m 0 C in -a N N r r -D as 4 C E C LL LL LL LL C U) n 0 id. �0- O w co 0_ O w co ■ O Y 2 c co ccz Co i C w Legend N LL N LL r- L_ r LL _o CO C 5 C C E s 4 0- 1 EL 0- a■ OCY 00 w w L C9 LIJ3 b C w '3 C C J 4 N LL a_ W r IL C W N LL C- r LL 0■ D R3 C V) O Y C.9 m C E _C 0 0 C LLI N- O N CO r O C CO 0 C (ti a a) cts a Co I a a) C a) CO RS = 15000 HecXS10 C -0 (N N r 1- D a E C LL LL u... LL C C/) L a) (D Cn (9 ( `- 0 in in CDm 0 C w LO O 0 LO LU CO O LU co < < i LU CO O d' CO T U) M co (11) uogenala O CO CO d O 0 -O CO Li) 0 LO N N r CO CO CO it � O O O O O O O C 0 co co Legend N UL N LL r LL r LL. C co U) O n 4 0_ uJ 4 0_ a. LWJ CL ■ O U1 .Xc m 0 03 ti w N- r O N CO r r O cO 0 C c13 a_ RS = 10000 HecXS12 A U) O V 0 C -O C 0 4 (N LL_ a. N LL - r LL CL_ r LL °- ■ .0 as C C/) o _c E L 0 0 U9 U� L C O —J w >w > w> >w m v C w • 0 0 U) CO mot' - O r O 0 O CO O 0 0 0 _o 0 N I I I I CO (II) uoneA3Ia CO tt r O CO CO mot' O C 0 ct3 -O (NJ N r r- -0 co C a) E C LL LL LL LL C (I) n a j 0 0_ cow C O 0 CO J w > O CD m s C w N N N-- r 7:3 a3 C a) E C a 0 i LL a' . O LL cu LL O� LL it C (I) o Y ".cz n ca O _! W > Ili> C9 m U C LLI C -a C N LL. N IL r LL T- IL 'a C Ca U) E .c j 0_ 4 0- 0- a- ■ CO i C 0 CCS C W BennettPit-SPlatte N- O N CO r- CD Cfl a) O CC cu s U) Ne CL X U C) O O r• I I cn -a C ° CD 1 N LL a. CD r LL a_ O N LL a. w r LL a_ t � N r LL LL a- a- se se s .C (� C U) C _ o C E _ U ca -j LU LU 0 0 m 0 C LU U, O •OCOLC) LO O N r CO mot' O r 0O a U. I I 1 _ 00 Cfl �t O O O OO cc cc ■ a W) uo feines i � r O CO O O C N- a O -0 O r O O 0 0 _0 O O O RAS Plan Propose River: S Platte Reach: Alignment - Sout Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 1 29000.00 4839.00 4849.63 4848.26 4849.69 0.000832 5.03 16928.08 6577.63 0.27 Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 2 29000.00 4839.00 4850.10 4848.35 4850.18 0.000810 5.11 14971.15 4611.24 0.27 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 1 29000.00 4837.00 4847.45 4847.62 0.001046 6.23 14472.08 7194.89 0.34 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 2 29000.00 4837.00 4847.90 4848.11 0.001043 6.40 11773.16 3865.80 0.34 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 1 29000.00 4834.00 4845.46 4845.59 0.000789 5.73 17504.65 8247.03 0.30 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 2 29000.00 4834.00 4845.97 4846.11 0.000746 5.74 15169.29 5195.75 0.29 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 1 29000.00 4832.00 4843.41 4843.27 4844.05 0.002268 9.76 9366.49 6215.27 0.51 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 2 29000.00 4832.00 4843.86 4844.61 0.002273 10.02 6744.18 1908.62 0.51 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 1 29000.00 4831.00 4841.48 4841.71 0.001315 7.02 14186.92 7245.35 0.38 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 2 29000.00 4831.00 4841.94 4842.21 0.001297 7.17 12163.34 4850.83 0.38 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 1 29000.00 4829.00 4838.88 4839.08 0.001225 6.55 14533.37 7238.18 0.37 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 2 29000.00 4829.00 4839.34 4839.57 0.001215 6.72 12190.48 4546.55 0.37 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 1 29000.00 4827.00 4837.66 4837.86 0.001128 6.57 13418.72 5583.11 0.35 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 2 29000.00 4827.00 4838.12 4838.36 0.001115 6.72 11654.59 3858.27 0.36 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 1 29000.00 4826.50 4835.60 4835.69 0.000852 5.13 15958.28 6069.76 0.30 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 2 29000.00 4826.50 4836.07 4836.18 0.000830 5.24 14797.31 4908.35 0.30 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 1 29000.00 4821.00 4831.12 4831.64 0.002222 7.55 9116.79 6060.11 0.48 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 2 29000.00 4821.00 4831.56 4832.19 0.002232 7.85 6897.44 2537.53 0.48 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 1 29000.00 4817.00 4825.74 4825.94 0.001204 6.06 13857.63 6631.13 0.36 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 2 29000.00 4817.00 4826.19 4826.43 0.001207 6.27 12204.23 4808.24 0.36 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 1 29000.00 4813.00 4822.20 4822.34 0.001166 5.99 14216.30 6781.01 0.35 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 2 29000.00 4813.00 4822.67 4822.81 0.001166 5.95 12809.95 4740.77 0.34 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 1 29000.00 4809.00 4818.05 4818.21 0.001465 6.20 12587.33 6364.33 0.39 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 2 29000.00 4809.00 4818.52 4818.69 0.001443 6.19 11775.93 4323.56 0.37 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 1 29000.00 4805.00 4813.67 4813.82 0.001252 4.94 13245.62 5975.30 0.35 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 2 29000.00 4805.00 4814.14 4814.31 0.001223 5.13 13474.67 6153.26 0.35 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 1 29000.00 4801.00 4808.84 4809.07 0.001698 6.67 12348.28 6741.20 0.42 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 2 29000.00 4801.00 4809.33 4809.58 0.001634 6.81 11314.15 5062.67 0.42 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 1 29000.00 4799.00 4802.98 4803.04 0.000731 2.79 15657.95 5342.36 0.25 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 2 29000.00 4799.00 4803.44 4803.50 0.000722 2.97 15195.83 4686.50 0.25 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 1 29000.00 4794.55 4799.50 4798.57 4799.68 0.002324 5.80 11040.19 5707.33 0.46 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 2 29000.00 4794.55 4799.50 4798.84 4799.87 0.004159 7.73 8038.76 4347.20 0.61 HEC-RAS Plan: Propose River: S Platte Reach: Alignment - Sout Reach River Sta Profile W.S. Elev Prof Delta WS E.G. Elev Top Wctth Act Q Left Q Channel Q Right Enc Sta L Ch Sta L Ch Sta R Enc Sta R (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 1 4849.63 4849.69 6577.63 22135.89 1552.95 5311.16 4871.24 4900.28 Alignment - Sout 29977.07 PF 2 4850.10 0.48 4850.18 4611.24 23775.72 1649.03 3575.26 1254 68 4871.24 4900.28 5904.46 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 1 4847.45 4847.62 7194.89 18587.85 6478.08 3934.07 6813.27 6912.74 Alignment - Sout 28500 PF 2 4847.90 0.45 4848.11 3865.80 19472.61 6944.47 2582.92 4050.39 6813.27 6912.74 8019.25 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 1 4845.46 4845.59 8247.03 17437.39 6032.84 5529.78 6636.20 6728.02 Alignment - Sout 26500 PF 2 4845.97 0.51 4846.11 5195.75 18386.17 6305.21 4308.62 3027.38 6636.20 6728.02 8223.13 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 1 4843.41 4844.05 6215.27 14466.76 11551.34 2981.90 5653.96 5757.75 Alignment - Sout 25313.88 PF 2 4843.86 0.45 4844.61 1908.62 14617.32 12330.31 2052.37 3726.82 5653.96 5757.75 5853.18 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 1 4841.48 4841.71 7245.35 13129.74 7584.50 8285.76 5111.35 5214.51 Alignment - Sout 24421.62 PF 2 4841.94 0.46 4842.21 4850.83 13257.39 8095.79 7646.82 2529.34 5111.35 5214.51 7403.63 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 1 4838.88 4839.08 7238.18 7821.02 7484.73 13694.25 5698.23 5813.94 Alignment - Sout 22651.94 PF 2 4839.34 0.46 4839.57 4546.55 6757.97 8036.98 14205.06 3942.49 5698.23 5813.94 8513.65 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 1 4837.66 4837.86 5583.11 13373.88 7296.90 8329.21 5616.58 5720.81 Alignment - Sout 21768.17 PF 2 4838.12 0.46 4838.36 3858.27 13599.22 7789.00 7611.78 3746.19 5616.58 5720.81 7781.60 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 1 4835.60 4835.69 6069.76 16876.81 4606.85 7516.33 6088.13 6186.94 Alignment - Sout 20325.92 PF 2 4836.07 0.48 4836.18 4908.35 18222.57 4952.14 5825.29 2396.05 6088.13 6186.94 7317.46 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 1 4831.12 4831.64 6060.11 6416.13 16149.29 6434.58 3779.50 4055.29 Alignment - Sout 17500 PF 2 4831.56 0.44 4832.19 2537.53 4687.40 17760.18 6552.42 2728.62 3779.50 4055.29 5314.45 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 1 4825.74 4825.94 6631.13 11347.33 8780.19 8872.48 5223.39 5389.19 Alignment - Sout 15000 PF 2 4826.19 0.45 4826.43 4808.24 11081.19 9556.07 8362.75 2499.03 5223.39 5389.19 7356.97 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 1 4822.20 4822.34 6781.01 22033.22 4610.54 2356.23 7144.12 7227.75 Alignment - Sout 12500 PF 2 4822.67 0.46 4822.81 4740.77 24190.97 4809.03 2433.94 7144.12 7227.75 7227.75 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 1 4818.05 4818.21 6364.33 22253.31 5053.77 1692.93 7602.21 7703.56 Alignment - Sout 10000 PF 2 4818.52 0.48 4818.69 4323.56 23657.79 5342.21 3051.84 7602.21 7703.56 7703.56 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 1 4813.67 4813.82 5975.30 16285.14 8865.98 3848.88 8369.07 8661.51 Alignment - Sout 7500 PF 2 4814.14 0.47 4814.31 6153.26 16758.09 9910.78 2331.13 2544.62 8369.07 8661.51 9104.79 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 1 4808.84 4809.07 6741.20 14969.53 7600.88 6429.58 7213.66 7359.05 Alignment - Sout 5000 PF 2 4809.33 0.48 4809.58 5062.67 15454.04 8238.92 5307.04 2904.78 7213.66 7359.05 9349.93 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 1 4802.98 4803.04 5342.36 27145.79 1673.69 180.53 7520.75 7672.12 Alignment - Sout 2500 PF 2 4803.44 0.46 4803.50 4686.50 27011.62 1988.38 2735.36 7520.75 7672.12 7672.12 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 1 4799.50 4799.68 5707.33 22343.51 6558.87 97.62 7883.19 8111.83 Alignment - Sout 100 PF 2 4799.50 0.00 4799.87 4347.20 20249.68 8750.33 1832.97 7883.19 8111.83 8111.83 .O N (v r r (V r -0 CO C N _ c LL LL LL LL. LL LL C U) CD i 0 0- a- e an a D _Y U d 0 W co O W (f) 1_72 U U t - n Ca CC) o U C W N- O N CO O C tU 0 C (0 0 BennettPit-SPlatte RS = 28500 HecXS2 Legend Ni N r r CO N LL LL LL LL C (n 0 C) 0 C E O W WO OD O C W O A LO 0 COLD O OT V /O W CO O co I � I 1 (4) uopna9 O co T O Mt cc I I O O -O N r O O O O O O O CO O O O 0 O O O O C O c� (75 'a C C CD J 1 N LL d' � w N LL a- T IL Q' W r LL 0■ p co C C!) O C Co C E , c 0 (13 o C w Sc N r c., r r .o C N C LL LL LL LL LL C Cl) _c m C� C� a_ Cn a. (1) f ■ o i C (CS o J w W U O m C w N - r 0 N r CO r CO 0 C ('3 a. C (U a RS = 24421.62 HecXS5 A N (N r- r- .D (D C n E C a) i LL 0- 4 LL m LL m LL Ci- C (I) CO • Y 0 0 O Cn O Cn L- 0 -J W W 0m o C w O Uf) O N- CO CO 00 mot' v mot' (4) uoiTenon F I LO 0 CO CO CO 0 0 0 N r- 0 0 -O O r- 0 _o O CO 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 4r 0 O (N O N- r - 0 0 N r CO r CO 0 C CU 0_ C (13 11 RS = 22651.94 HecXS6 so N N r r C N C LL LL LL LL C U) _ —' w w cp m 0 C w O •oCOUn O o co co Nr O N- CO Nt T- r i I C CD co Nr III LO `Cr CO CO (11) uonenala r i I O CO CO -r O O -O N r O O -O O O O -O cc O O O Co O O O v- 0 O -O N O N O E c O co- 4- O N Cr) CO O (Ci a C (t3 a a) (t� a CD i a a) C C a) m RS = 21768.17 HecXS7 U) O U, O v N N N- r D c,3 C E C a)4 LL 0_ 1a. LL LL 0_ LL ■ C p V) . ,Y C 0 C al I ' O U) O co c Co co Ng - U) cc (14) uoRena9 O co tt O O _O co O O O O O _ O O O _O O N O co co O C O ct (N N r- r- .7:3 CO C N C i LL fl LL a" LL a" LL a- C U) _ V a� 'i I W wow0 W O Y om U c W pue6ei (y LL 4 C W N-- LL CL tea. W N LL r LL W -0 42 C (/) D Y O cts co c c L 0 v c W to N N , r- _c,N C C LL L1- LL LL C (I) .C 0 CM 4 a_ 1 0- a. a- * C .c 0 U CO U C w N N r r D CO C a) E C LL L.L Li_LL C (I) sc CD W W W 0 CZ CIO p C L1J C C) j N LL 0_ � N LL 0_ r LL o_ r LL D .O(:9 C (I) u C Y C t E L U a) W 0) O LiiCo 0 C� E p V C LU lend C 4a. N LL 4a. N LL r LL a r- lL a cz C U) C Y c 0 (.9 u) CD W ) CD m (75 o U C in N- O N CO 1 Cr) O CO a_ C co a - N co RS = 5000 HecXS14 lo O V Legend N LL 1 N LL r- LL r- LL 'a ME C (/) 42 n 4 11 n- C ■ C O 0 LLJ W CD m v C W •OCO1.n IC) 0 CO CO (14) uo!Jenaf O O O O 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 _0 N 0 N- 1 0 N r - M r Cr) O C (i 0.. d co 0_ a) ifs 0_ co I 0_ N c c 0 CO RS = 2500 HecXS15 N N r— r— _o M C E n d LL EL LL LL LL C C/) d 4 •1Cla w coC� W O YC L O m 2 o C W 10 O 0 0 O N r - O O -O O r- (11) uoijenaja t C 0 ct, 4- 0 a) C11 0 U) 0 a) C C Q) CC) r N- O N CO 0 CO a) CC (0 X 0 a) O O I Ct r: O O V N r- N r N r -c cli C N n C in LL LL � 4(0__ LL LL irl LL LL +C CU) D 0 �Y Ct ^a) W nn v v "i �0- V>J '_,-6- c cz ..J w W > U U m o c w •OML0 N_ O CO CO cc (fl 0 O CO cc co Ncr (4) uoijena99 CO 0) O N- N- d C 0 cc Appendix D Special Flood Hazard Information Report Information Jr 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 L FGEND 'We YEA ("di(' 51,k heE Aki FLOOD r_!. 000 OW LINE- Os: 'via Y '� '-j I', H A r n !MAR ir ,fi PPOY, . ' -IUCC NOTES r();! t.0(.;?TIUN OF THIS P. ATE SEE rfl Ti INfillX i'.iiAP iPL;Aii.. L r1.Rc ['ILL SE .E•r kief o "c.iYr Sic ii ! ,, L , A - II SOUTH PLATE RIVER BASIN WELL) COUNTY, COLORADO SOUTH PLATTE RIMER FLOODED AREA ts. E (GlN !••:Pt DI^31P;tC . f4��hI{Yt tfF�i-'ta Qt E dG!NE AT.-i AHA. NELF'-Y,t.St4A APRIL 1077 PLATE 66 tEGEND _ IOU 'YEAR «L00[ 500 4rii-AP FLOOD RoDC'OUfaNE eP w G2 &ArER'ARK APPROX SCALE ;r A T; 'MC.3 MA'? AI: } z ; E $rc dI,r25 - J ra. 1.7 St 12 '. GE 5Gk L G.P%{ P. A!E 15 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER FLOODED AREA E J J1MY ENGINEER OS RtCT.OMAHA QQBPs OF E&3INEEH$ OMAHA. NEBRASKA APRIL 1977 PLATE 6W I,E O 'u YEAR FLOOD SI)P YFAR FtOOt' FLOOD OU LINE or Poky' 1973 ApPPOx, SCALE 11)l7Q NOTES• I FOR LOCATION Or HIS PrLd1,1177 Sr`. PLATE iN0F.).: Ar olutk1f;, 71I,. L''1 r� l:7. r.L r! F SOUTH PLATTE RIVER E3A.SLN WELD COUNTY, C:C LORA.DQ FLOODED AIRE.A r 1':L. f 'I I N F r• i � `'. I': I L. L L, 1 f .k ic F 1!Q'= -'F ._''akJINI_rAHA_ Fi Sri^.A APfiII, 51.3/1 PLATE r LEGEND, ;CC YEAR FLOOD SOO YEAR FL ..D FLOOD OUTLINE OF M Y 1973 HR3H WATER MARK APFROX, SCALE V=100 NOTES` 1 Ft^R LOCATION OF tffl$ PLATE SEE PLATE INDEX MAP (PLATE 2) 2 FOR PROFILE. SEE PLATE 26 SOUtH PLATTE RIVER BASIN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SOUTH PLATTE RIVER FLOODED AREA L4 I. ARMY EP GIINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA CORPS OF ENatNEERE CMANA, NEBRASKA APRIL n Appendix E Side Channel Spillway Maps and Calculations VII 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 The length of the riverside berm is greater than 1,300 feet. According to Technical Review Guidelines for Gravel Mining & Water Storage Activities from Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, the equation for the side channel spillway length is: LS 0.6 x Ap 12,000 LS = length of the side channel spillway Ap = area of pit measured in square feet at the high water line The calculated surface area for the North and South cell combined at the high water line is 4,271,494 square feet. The calculated length of the spillway is 213.6 feet which was rounded to 215 feet. The riverside berm protection was designed based on Figure 2.8: Riprap Spillway Stabilization from the Technical Review Guidelines for Gravel Mining & Water Storage Activities shown below. The pitside protection was designed using the Rock Chute Design Program based on "Design of Rock Chutes" by Robinson, Rice, and Kadavy, ASAE Vol. 41(3). The results sheet is included. RIVER'S \ THALWEG SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY a 10' WIDE MAINTENANCE TRAIL RIVER BANK PROTECTION PER 2.3 CONCRETE CUTOFFS TYPE M - SOIL RIPRAP MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF SURFACING THE ENTIRE SPILLWAY CREST WITH TYPE M SOIL RIPRAP RIVERSIDE BERM TOP (BEYOND SPILLWAY) 100' MAX. • .446 04 4. 41 et GROUTED BOULDERS PITSIDE SLOPE EXTEND BOULDERS TO BEDROCK OR 3' BELOW PIT BOTTOM *Z VARIES WITH RECLAIMED USE Figure 2.8 Riprap Spillway Stabilization Rock_Chute.xls Page 1 of 3 Rock Chute Design Data (Version WI -July -2010, Based on Design of Rock Chutes by Robinson, Rice, Kadavy, ASAE, 1998) Project: Bennett Piz Designer: TPY Date: May 12 2017 Input Geometry: County: Weld Checked by: Date: Upstream Channel Bw= 215.C ft. Side slopes = 10.0(m:1) Velocity n -value = 0.060 Bed slope = 0.0100 ft./ft. Chute Bw= 215.0 ft. Factor of safety = 1.20 (Fs) 1.2 Min Side slopes = 10.0(m:1) > 2.0:1 max. Bed slope (3:1) = 0.330 ft./ft -> 3.0:1 max. 'Dote: n value = a) velocity n from waterway program Freeboard = 0.0 ft. or b) computed mannings n for channel Outlet apron depth, d = 0.0 ft. Downstream Channel Bw = 400.0 ft. Side slopes = 0.1 (m:1) Velocity n -value = 0.020 Bed slope = 00050 ft./ft. Increase Freeboard Base flow = 0.0 cfs Design Storm Data (Table 2, FOTG, WI-NRCS Grade Stabilization Structure No. 410): Apron elev. --- Inlet =100.0 ft. Outlet 60.0 ft. - (Hdrop = 40 rt.) Q high = Runoff from design storm capacity from Table 2, FOTG Standard 410 Q 5 = Runofff from a 5 -year, 24 -hour storm. °high= 2000.0 cfs High flow storm through chute 05 = 2000.0 cfs Low flow storm through chute Note : The total required capacity is routed through the chute (principal spillway) or in combination with an auxiliary spillway. Input tailwater (Tw) : > Tw (ft.) = 3.00 Tw (ft.) = 3.00 Profile and Cross Section (Output): Starting Station = 0+00.0 hp, = 0.34 ft. (0.34 ft.) Hpe= 2.18 ft. Energy Grade Line Inlet Channel Inlet Aaron 40(D50) = 42 ft. = a91 fps radius at normal depth Critical Slope check upstream is OK Note: When the normal depth (ye) in the inlet Geotextile channel is less than the weir head (Hp), ie., the weir capacity is less than the channel capacity, restricted flow or ponding will occur. This reduces velocity and prevents erosion upstream of the inlet apron. Typical Cross Section Freeboard = * Use Hp along chute but not less than z2. —215 ft. -- Notes: 1) Output given as High Flow (Low Flow) values. 2) Tailwater depth plus d must be at or above the hydraulic jump height for the chute to function. 3) Critical depth occurs 2y, - 4yc upstream of crest. 4) Use WI Const. Spec. 13, Class I non -woven geotextile under rock. = 0.74 ft. (0.74 ft.) .` • Hdrop = 40 ft. . Rock Chute Bedding Outlet Apron Le. 19 ft. Profile Along Centerline of Chute Geotextile . , Rock Chute Bedding Rock thickness — aft. 2.24 ft 0.058 15.1 in. 9.01 cis/ft. 1.20 NMI AIMS Hydraulic Jump Height, z2= 2.24 ft. (2.24 ft.) at 3 ft. (3 ft.) 2.5 Velocity 15(D5o)(FS) Outlet Channel Slope = 0.005 ft./ft. d = 0 ft. {1 ft. minimum suggested) = 1.67 fps at normal depth Equivalent unit discharge Factor of safety (multiplier) 0.74 ft. Normal depth in chute Manning's roughness coefficient Minimum Design D50* 30.3 in. Rock chute thickness Tailwater above outlet apron Hydraulic jump height will function adequately High Flow Storm Information Rock_Chute.xls for construction plan Rock Chute Design - Cut/Paste Plan (Version WI -July -2010, Based on Design of Rock Chutes by Robinson, Rice, Kadavy, ASAE, 1998) Project: Bennett Pit Designer: TPY Date: May 12 2017 County: Weld Checked by: Date: Design Values D50 dia. = 18.0 in. Rockchute thickness = 36.0 in. Inlet apron length = 14 ft. Outlet apron length = 19 ft. Radius = 50 ft. Will bedding be used? Yes Rock Gradation Envelope Passing Dioo D85 D50 D10 Diameter, in. (weight, lbs.) 27 - 36 (1393 - 3302) 23 - 32 (907 - 2407) 18 - 27 (413 - 1393) 14 - 23 (211 - 907) Coefficient of Uniformity, (D60)4010) 10) < 1.7 Quantities a Rock = 5200 yd3 Geotextile (WCS-13)b = 5740 yd2 Bedding 12 in. = 1974 yd3 Excavation = 0 Earthfill = 0 yd3 yd3 Seeding = 0.0 acres Notes: a Rock, bedding, and geotextile quantities are determined from x -section below (neglect radius). b Geotextile Class I (Non -woven) shall be overlapped and anchored (18 -in. minimum along sides and 24 -in. minimum on the ends) --- quantity not included. Upstream Channel Slope z- 0.01 ft./ft. Stakeout Notes Sta. 0+00.0 0+06.0 0+14.0 0+21.6 1 +35.2 1+54.2 1+542 Notes: Elev. (Pnt) 100 ft. (1) 100 ft. (2) 99.3 ft. (3) 97.5 ft. (4) 60 ft. (5) 60 ft. (6) 60 ft. (7) Radius = 50.04 ft.-- Geotextile Inlet apron elev. = 100 ft. 2 3 < 4 Rock thickness = 36 i n . 121 ft. 1 Point No. Description 2 Point of curvature (PC) 3 Point of intersection (PI) 4 Point of tangency (PT) Outlet apron elev. = 60 ft. .� 3.0S' 19 ft. -J'2.5 5 Profile Along Centerline of Rock Chute Freeboard = 0 ft. Rock gradation envelope can be met with Gradation printed 1 Downstream Channel 7 Slope = 0.005 ft./ft. 1 d = 0 ft. Rock Chute Bedding Top width =261 ft. • 1/ J 215 ft. Berm Geotextile Rock Chute Bedding Rock thickness = 36 in. B' = 215.4 ft. * Use H throughout chute but not less than z2. Rock Chute Cross Section Profile, Cross Sections, and Quantities 4NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture Bennett Pit Weld County Designed Drawn Checked Approved TPY Date File Name Drawing Name Sheet 1 of 1 OVERBURDEN AND TO PSO I L r' BACKFILL ALL DISTURBED ARC DOW F! TO WATER SURFACE VARIES SIBS rieliCSIP‹ Jr Pr., <",:\,/,\4\ /.. /707 >ti,K(C'►tier-, r'p�`t�`'�,ff' �v'�'��`�•,,t '� y�•° '1''t�'�'h`'"J•�r°'•. �. '7n.. ao }f l ;-- r . r J��ry { "{{,,//}� fpt�y *," / ,J,1rh��F, r- y`�uF �{y''.'c{`+. •,,�frfi r ; ' "�ySN "E, 1 � aa• sir ' • - 2 • L RECLA! D SECTION N.J.S, e ai • a i .a a■ a ■ t o■ o aliens • r r t 4 4 t IL■ a -a - 4 a s . s c a is • • •* • • • a • *a • r.• t• ■ .1 • a -n • w • 'a ■ a I a t a. . . . I •- i4 • • t A. • a a- • •• tr • s • ■ a ■ ie -■ a I. -- l•--■ t • a • a 4 - • it • '• • W■. i , 4 • a • W• ■ I r • 1 a a r r t • t al ' a 4 • • : .• . 4 r • a ■ • • • . • a . a • orore• a a a- ea ■ ravage - -- + 1 T a a to • • a r- 4 - r- • • s . M S • P ` a a•r r a • . 14 s I. • a • W 4 a a- • a ■ • t - ° t o nl• .# air Ora aa • a r -a a ',rt. or • . i : i r a a. • a act. a ea • 41,. roil 4 4 ° S r i e a S • Y • r • ■ ■ t ■ n i .r - i . i • B 3 a a Ira a ma ...... , �.as a • • + c • • a a S • a • ' a • • �1 • I • e ■ a. • . r el a ■ �a I •�g r a r • • a ■ •. a r • ■ ■ J FI a c t xr ■ -t e t t� t r r t 'r e r . . i & - ^ • • .•f 4 4 a a i 4 4 c • a a d . r _• - a ♦ aa a a a a a r. a ■ •. • r a . 1 CI -i ■ 1 S t r t a • 't x, n -T - .'s P• • a icedub { a• • a ■ ` L • •• • S • • ar ■ a ■ r ■ • r -- __—_� - r a_y a -a, ■a 's • r or •-• • i I St 100 YEAR 1 FLOOD WAY W.. • •t tita s� 215 FT ti F X 2:f -I- UEER- SIDE C JEI.._SPILLWA ` ¢ b` ti j r.4 LEG ENDS. geolAo- C C' r --O[ a — — i EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING CONTOURS VC AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY GAS ELECTRIC TELEPHONE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EASEMENT SLURRY WAI lil tJ &TO LTA Et PERMIT BOUNDARY 100 YR FLOODP LAIN 48,57— PROPOSED CONTOURS SEEDED AREAS •_• a r r •t i' _ _ 11 a< AMIN Immo ids U �7 0 U7 1 C } C } C It to 0 ti tO 0 CO M tb In I I` 1.3 rl O.5 a o 0 x {a C P 4 14-r SN Jr� i_c 5 ILL ci 1f, Q. Bennett Gravel Pit Reclamation Plan Map 4C 5' O DERM RIVER'S TFIALWEG .3' RIVERSIDE RIVER'S THALWEG 3 D5O = 15" TYPE H RIPRAP 1,5' VARIES 1 P CONCRETE CUTOFF �{ WALL (TYP) RIVERSIDE VIEW SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY 5' 3 SECTION VIEW 215' SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY PITSIDE VIEW 215' SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY RIPRAP LINED SIDE CHANNEL SPILLWAY N.T.S. d • TS DE D56 = 1 B" TYPE H RIPRAP EXTEND RIPRAP TO BEDROCK OR TO S BELOW PIT BOTTOM EXTEND RIPRAP TO BEDROCK OR TO 3' BELOW PIT BOTTOM Bennett Gravel Pit LI_ 3 Side Channel Spillway Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. O 2 5 7 0 AT CONSULTING, INC mineog 16116 Da_limn 7'FY JOY �r}gga Ibr ChOed fait JT-RDab melon Scale 1"-200' Sheet: OF;; 2 Cross -Section Existing Base Ftood Elevation (foew' Upstream LIf'iIf bout Corps Sec 07 4849.63 HecXS 1 4849.63 HecXS2 4847 45 HecXS3 4845 46 HecXS 4 4843.47 HecXS5 4841.53 HecXS6 4838.96 HecXS7 4837.7 HecXSB 4835.6 Hec6 4831 12 HecXS 10 482514 HecXS 11 4822.2 HecXS12 4818 05 HeCXS13 4813.67 Her.XS14 4808.84 HecXS15 4842 98 Hec ST6 4T99.5 Oiovcnstream Limit North Corps Sec 66 4799.54 Cross -Section Future Base Hood Elevation (Peet " Upstream Limit South Corps See 67 4849 63 Hec. 1 4849 63 HecXS2 4847 45 HeeXS3 4845 48 HeeXS4 4843.41 HecXS5 484148 Heck'S6 4839 88 HecXS7 4837 66 HecX5$ 4835 60 i-lecXS9 483112 HecXS 10 4825.74 HecXS 11 I 4822 20 HecXS 12 4818.05 HecXS 13 4613.67 HecXS14 4808 94 HecXS 15 4802.98 Fief +- 6 4789.50 Dovenstream Limit North Corps Sec 66 479950 IGI1 02.41. ! 7 GM5# I Tr% JOY .l -t ereitc! GIS 1" = 600' May 11,2017 Mr. Peter Hays Environmental Protection Specialist State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, & Safety 1313 Sherman Street — Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to History Colorado Dear Mr. Hays, Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. has received the Division's adequacy review comments letter dated April 5, 2017. Below is the response to the comments received from History Colorado. History Colorado noted in their response that most of Colorado has not been inventoried for cultural resources. Response: SWCA conducted a cultural resources survey and determined there were not impacts to any cultural resources within the permit area. The cultural resources study is provided in the attachments. Thank you for your consideration of our responses to the comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if you need additional information. Sincerely, n J.C. York, P.E. J&T Consulting, Inc. LI 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions' A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for J&T Consulting, Inc. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants November 2016 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for and Submitted to: J&T Consulting, Inc. 1400 West 122 Avenue, Suite 120 Westminster, Colorado 80234 Prepared by: Nicole Kromarek Principal Investigator: Scott Phillips SWCA Environmental Consultants 295 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300 Broomfield, Colorado 80021 Phone: 303-487-1183 / Fax: 303-487-1245 www.swca.com Colorado State Cultural Resource Use Permit No. 2016-47 SWCA Project No. 40936 SWCA Cultural Resource Report No. 16-617 November 4, 2016 CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION DO NOT RELEASE A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado ABSTRACT SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted an intensive, Class III cultural resource inventory on behalf of J&T Consulting, Inc., to fulfill the requirements for inclusion of a property in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and for access to water resources managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Since the inclusion of the property in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District requires authorization from Reclamation, this action constitutes a federal undertaking and therefore the survey was requested to fulfill Reclamation's obligations in meeting Section 106 requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act. Pursuant to Section 106, the purpose of this inventory was to locate and identify any cultural resources located within the project area and assess the potential effects to cultural resources resulting from this federal undertaking. The Class III inventory covered 191 acres of private land located northwest of Fort Lupton in Sections 1 and 12 of Township 2 North, Range 67 West, in Weld County, Colorado. A segment of the historic Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 (5WL6 107.2) and a field ditch (5WL8064.1) were located and newly recorded by SWCA during fieldwork. Both of the newly recorded ditch segments have been recommended as not supporting the overall eligibility of the overall historic site for the National Register of Historic Places. Because both resources are recommended non - supporting of National Register of Historic Places eligibility, no historic properties are located within the project area and no additional work is recommended. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 111 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT II CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM VI UNDERTAKING/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 Hydrology 1 Climate 2 Flora and Fauna 2 Geology 4 Soils 4 Environmental Constraints 4 CULTURE HISTORY 4 Prehistoric Overview 4 Historic Overview 6 Irrigation in Colorado 8 PREVIOUS WORK 10 Literature Review 10 Historic Linear Resources 14 Land Patent Search 14 Historic Map Review 14 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/RESEARCH DESIGN 15 Objectives 15 Expected Results 15 FIELD METHODS 15 Site and Isolated Find Recording 16 RESULTS 16 5WL6107.2: Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 17 5 WL8064.1 21 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 24 REFERENCES CITED 25 Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 1V A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado LIST OF FIGURES Fi u re Pam 1 Project location map at 1:24,000 -scale showing the inventoried areasviii 2 Overview of the environmental setting in the northern portion of the project area, facing northeast 3 3 Overview of the environmental setting along the South Platte River, in the eastern portion of the project area, facing north. 3 4 5WL6107.2 segment overview, facing south. 17 5 5WL6107.2 site sketch map. 18 6 5WL6107.1 detail of the Meadow Island Ditch, facing south-southeast, as previously recorded south of the project area by Centennial Archaeology in 2009. 19 7 5WL6107.2 detail of the newly recorded segment of Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 with a farmstead in the background, facing northwest20 8 5WL8064.1 overview, facing east21 9 5WL8064.1 site sketch map. 22 10 5WL8064.1 detail of where ditch crosses under gravel road, facing east. 23 LIST OF TABLES Table Pat 1 Previous Inventories 12 2 Previously Recorded Sites 13 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Colorado Cultural Resource Site Forms (Detached) B Resource Location Map (Detached) Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release v A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado History Colorado -Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Cultural Resource Survey Management Information Form I. PROJECT SIZE Total federal acres in project Total state acres in project Total private acres in project Total other acres in project II. PROJECT LOCATION County: USGS Quad Map: 0.0 0.0 191.0 0.0 Weld County Platteville, CO (1970) Total federal acres surveyed Total state acres surveyed Total private acres surveyed Total other acres surveyed Principal Meridian: Sixth Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township Township III . SITES • 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N 2N Range 67W Section 1 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 Range 67W Section 12 N 1/2 E 1/2 E 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 N 1/2 1/4 S 1/2 N 1/2 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 N 1/2 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 N 1/2 E 1/2 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 0.0 0.0 191.0 0.0 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 W 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Smithsonian Number 5WL6107.2* 5WL8064.1 * Resource Type U 0 0 C Q) w Eligibility Contributes to Manacement Recommendations N O Q O 0 CD 4--r Ca Ca w i 4J 0 X X X X X X * INDICATES NON -SUPPORTING SEGMENTS Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release vi A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado IV. ISOLATED FINDS Smithsonian Number Resource Type , .o U) a. _0 �L O O Y U .o a) I a. None Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release vii Resource Type Smithsonian i co C-) o Number o U, LE 0 t O Q) o CD aMr A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado 0 0.25 0.5 1 1:24,000 Base Map: USGS 7.5' Topographic Map USA_Topo_Maps, Esri Online Service © 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Township 02N Range 67W Quadrangle Platteville, CO (1970) Weld County, CO h Figure 1. Project location map at 1:24,000 -scale showing the inventoried areas. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release viii A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release ix A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado UNDERTAKING/PROJECT DESCRIPTION In 2016, SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a Class III cultural resource inventory of a 191 -acre property (or "project area"), encompassing all of five contiguous private land parcels (Parcel Numbers 131101000016, 131112200044, 131112200041, 131112200042, and 13112200004). This inventory was conducted on behalf of the landowner, who is seeking inclusion of the parcels in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD). The landowner, Tom Bennett, is contemplating further property development and annexation from unincorporated Weld County into the city of Fort Lupton. Since the inclusion of the property in the NCWCD requires authorization from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), this action constitutes a federal undertaking and therefore the survey was requested to fulfill Reclamation's obligations in meeting Section 106 requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Pursuant to Section 106, the purpose of this cultural resource survey was to locate and identify any potentially significant cultural resources located within the project area and to assess the potential effects of this federal undertaking on these resources. The project area is approximately 5 miles northwest of central Fort Lupton. These lands are along the South Platte River in the SE'/4 of Section 1, Township (T) 2 North (N), Range (R) 67 West (W), and portions of the NE'/4 and NW'/4 of Section 12, T2N, R67W (see Figure 1). At the time of the field survey the inventory area was primarily cultivated agricultural fields with approximately 80 percent of the ground surface moderately disturbed by plowing, harvesting, and oil and gas development. SWCA requested geographic information systems (GIS) data from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) on October 24, 2016, and received the GIS files on October 26, 2016. An online OAHP COMPASS file search was conducted by Nicole Kromarek on October 31, 2016. Fieldwork was performed on October 26, 2016, by Nicole Kromarek and Jenny Stokowski. Scott Phillips served as Principal Investigator and Zonna Barnes served as the cultural resource project manager. Copies of field notes and photographs are on file at SWCA's Denver office under project number 40936. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is in the Colorado Piedmont, a geographical province characterized by relatively flat topography where the Great Plains transition to the foothills of the Colorado Front Range. Much of the Tertiary fluvial material constituting the surface geology of the region has been eroded away by the South Platte River (Gilmore et al. 1999). The project area is bounded at south by County Road (CR) 22'/2 and at east by the South Platte River. The topography in and immediately surrounding the majority of the project area is a generally large, flat valley created by the South Platte River. This semi -arid region naturally supports prairie grassland and riparian habitat. HYDROLOGY The South Platte River, at the eastern extent of the project area, is the major natural drainage in the region. A historic stream channel of the braided South Platte River crosses the western extent of project area. Several irrigation ditches are located in the project vicinity, including the Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 1 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Meadow Island Ditch No. 1, the Upton Bottom Ditch, and the Platte Valley Canal. The project area crosses a short segment of the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 and an unnamed field ditch. CLIMATE The general climate in the project vicinity is described as relatively dry year-round, with cold winters and hot summers (Crabb 1980). Annual precipitation averages for the project vicinity are relatively low. The city of Fort Lupton is documented to receive an average of 12.63 inches of precipitation annually, most of which falls during the summer months (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). The average annual mean temperature is 49.1 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]), with an average maximum temperature of 64.4°F and average minimum of 33.9°F (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). July temperatures average 73.2°F, and January temperatures average 26.8°F (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). Inventory of the project area was conducted in November and the weather conditions were dry and warm with clear to partly cloudy skies. FLORA AND FAUNA Based on natural vegetation classifications provided by Kuchler (1964, 1975), 10 natural vegetation communities are within the general Platte River Basin. The predominant vegetation community naturally found within the project area and the greater Platte River Basin is the Grama-Buffalo Grass Grassland. This community is characterized as a sparse desert grassland environment. Specifically, the proposed project area is almost entirely devoid of natural woody cover except in the eastern extent of the project, along the South Platte River (Figures 2 and 3). Outside of this area, a few lone -standing cottonwood (Populus sp.) trees occur along the irrigation ditch. The project area is within the overall ranges of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Bird species that are associated with agriculture and open lands include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Species observed that are associated with nearby lakes and reservoirs include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), green -winged teal (Anas crecca), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and ring -billed gull (Carus delawarensis). The surface vegetation within the majority of the project area is no longer composed of natural communities. Vegetation currently consists primarily of medium to tall grasses, weeds, and cultivated and fallow farm fields (see Figures 2 and 3). Patches of cottonwood trees line portions of the concrete -lined irrigation ditch as well as the South Platte River in the project area. The majority of the area is harvested corn (Zea mays) and wheat (Triticum spp.) fields. Ground surface visibility generally averaged approximately 0 to 80 percent at the time of the survey, although areas of grass and weeds in sections of the project area, particularly along the South Platte River as well as the wetland area in the western portion of the project area, had reduced surface visibility due to vegetation cover. The majority of the project area and surrounding region has experienced considerable surface modification through agricultural tillage, oil and gas development, as well as some residential development and associated roadway. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 2 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado el. Ait• ZE. ' 1" e, at' . r. 4:, •� �.. _ ..�� - ti'. . - •.._ lit; ee-. �, '� ark _ .0 . ; _ • ‘t > ' t. .a i. 1 ab. .r • T. 1It i • Figure 2. Overview of the environmental setting in the northern portion of the project area, facing northeast. Figure 3. Overview of the environmental setting along the South Platte River, in the eastern portion of the project area, facing north. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado GEOLOGY The underlying geology within the inventoried area consists of Quaternary -aged modern alluvium. This also includes Piney Creek Alluvium and younger deposits (Tweto 1979). SOILS Soils within the project area are principally deep, well -drained loams and a combination of loams and sandy loams that form in alluvial environments. Dominant within the project area is Altvan loam (old alluvium) with lesser amounts of Aquolls and Aquents gravelly substratum (recent alluvium), and Bankard sandy loam (sandy alluvium that is frequently flooded) (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2016). Natural soil formation is disrupted within the overall project area as a result of past and present agricultural activities. The soils mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the area have distinct textures and colors; however, the tilling and mixing of the soils present has created a homogenous horizon across most of the project area through the depth of the plow zone. This horizon consists of a brown sandy loam that is coarser with minimal gravels. Due to the mixing of soils from agricultural and construction development, the soils in the project area are unlikely to support intact, buried cultural materials within the plow zone; however, there is moderate to good potential for buried cultural materials below the plow zone. The inventory area itself is within or on the margins of areas developed for agriculture. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The project area is used mainly for irrigated agricultural cropland. Generally, cultivated soils in the project area are moderately to well -developed. Surface layers of most soils described for the project area are 5 to 60 inches thick with modern chisel plowing typically reaching 8 to 12 inches in depth. It is expected that archaeological deposits in these soils could be visible on the surface within plow zones, but that deposits retaining integrity might extend deeper. In areas that are not cultivated, soils in the project area are alluvium loam and sandy loam deposits in which archaeological deposits are expected to be visible on deflated surfaces and blowouts. Past flood events are anticipated to have affected potential cultural deposition. CULTURE HISTORY PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW The project area is located in the Platte River Basin as defined in Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin (Gilmore et al. 1999). The Platte River Basin was used by a variety of Native American groups throughout all of prehistory, beginning with Clovis period hunters at the end of the Pleistocene and continuing through to the onset of the European - dominated occupation of the region (Gilmore et al. 1999). The Platte River Basin prehistoric context provides a comprehensive overview and summary of our knowledge of prehistoric and early historic developments of the region. The Paleoindian stage, ranging from 12,040 to 5,740 B.C. in the Platte River Basin, represented early human migrations to the New World during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Projectile points associated with this group are found mostly along rivers, which were Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 4 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado environments well suited for now -extinct megafauna. Evidence indicates an emphasis on big - game hunting by the highly mobile peoples of the Paleoindian stage. Paleoindian technology is characterized by regionally similar tools, necessitated by a highly mobile, big -game hunting lifestyle. The Paleoindian stage in the Platte River Basin includes three periods: Clovis, Folsom, and Plano. In addition to these periods, there is evidence of pre -Clovis occupation in the Platte River Basin (Gilmore et al. 1999). Paleoindian sites in the Platte River Basin are typically associated with the Kersey Terrace and its equivalent, the Pleasant Valley Terrace, north of the river. Both are Pleistocene terraces of the South Platte River, the channel banks and bars of which Paleoindian peoples used to travel across the landscape (McFaul et al. 1994:368). Clovis sites (12,040-9,750 B.C.) are rare in the Platte River Basin with only six being recorded in this region by the time the Platte River Basin prehistoric context was compiled. One of these is the Dent site, located just south of the southern end of the project area, adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and west of the South Platte River. The Dent site (5WL269), a Clovis kill site considered significant as the first site in North America with accepted evidence of cultural material associated with mammoth remains, has been sporadically investigated since the 1930s when it was discovered. The remains of at least 13 mammoths and several Clovis points have been recovered; investigations suggest that there is still likely intact material associated with the site underneath the active UPRR tracks. Another of these sites is the Klein II Clovis site (SWL 1368). Over the course of more than 40 years, the site, which was discovered in 1950, has sporadically yielded several Clovis points, flaked stone material, and Pleistocene faunal remains (McFaul et al. 1994). Its location in a plowed agricultural field, in alluvial deposits less than 20 centimeters (cm) below the Kersey Terrace, is representative of Paleoindian sites in the region. Twenty-three Folsom sites (11,340-8,720 B.C.) have been identified in the Platte River Basin, including the Powars site (5WL1369). Originally discovered in the 1930s and subsequently partially excavated, the site consisted of "Folsom projectile points and other lithic artifacts eroding from eolian sand deposits near the south edge of the Kersey terrace," south of the South Platte River (McFaul et al. 1994:350). The Plano period (10,850-5,740 B.C.) is more substantial with 46 sites recorded within the region (Gilmore et al. 1999). The Late Paleoindian period Frazier Site (5WL268) is one of the only Agate Basin sites excavated in Colorado. This site is interpreted as a secondary butchering site where an extinct form of bison were processed. The main kill site was never identified. Excavations of the Frazier Site were undertaken by Marie Wormington in 1966 and 1967, yielding numerous stone tools including 11 projectile points, as well as butchered bison bone (Wormington 1984). In the Platte River Basin, the Archaic stage developed and lasted from 5,500 B.C. to A.D. 150. During this stage, the native populations apparently modified their subsistence and settlement patterns in response to the fluctuating environmental conditions that existed at the time. During the Early Archaic period (5,500-3,000 B.C.), the mountains and foothills were cool and wet, while the plains were hotter and drier. Twenty-six sites are attributed to the Early Archaic period in this region by the time the Platte River Basin prehistoric context was researched. The Middle Archaic period (3,000-1,000 B.C.) experienced a return to a cooler climate throughout the region, with a corresponding subsistence pattern based on a broader range of plants and animals. An increase in grinding devices, lanceolate projectile points, stemmed projectile points with Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 5 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado concave bases, and corner -notched Elko or Pelican Lake series projectile points are common for this period. In the Platte River Basin prehistoric context (Gilmore et at. 1999), 35 Middle Archaic sites recorded in the region are discussed. These sites tend to be centered on the foothill transition zone west of Denver. The Late Archaic (1,000 B.C.—A.D. 150) archaeological record is populated by larger sites that were occupied for longer durations and were more intensively used than those of the Middle Archaic period. Projectile points from the Late Archaic period are generally large corner -notched and side -notched types (Zier and Kalasz 1999:100-136). Forty Late Archaic sites had been recorded in the Platte River Basin at the time the prehistoric context was compiled (Gilmore et al. 1999). Although several burials have been excavated along the streams and drainages in the broader region surrounding the current project area, few have been dated to the Archaic period. The one exception is 5WL2055, the Webster Feedlot Burial. It was discovered eroding from the north bank of the South Platte River near the confluence with Crow Creek and dated to the Late Archaic (Wanner and Brunswig 1992). In the Platte River Basin, the Late Prehistoric stage dates from A.D. 150 to 1540 and is divided into two periods: the Early Ceramic (A.D. 150-1150) and Middle Ceramic (A.D. 1,150-1540). The Early Ceramic period is represented by the appearance of the bow and arrow, intensified development in bone and shell technology, the appearance of ceramics, and structural surface architecture. In total, 67 sites had been recorded within the Platte River Basin at the time the prehistoric context was compiled (Gilmore et al. 1999). During the Middle Ceramic period, a semi -sedentary settlement pattern developed and architecture became more prevalent and diverse, pottery became more diversified, and projectile points were typically smaller and triangular with side notches or were un-notched. Thirty-one Middle Ceramic sites have been identified in this region (Gilmore et al. 1999). The Protohistoric period (A.D. 1540-1860) begins with the contact of native populations and Europeans and ends with the European domination of the region, and includes the introduction of horses (Gilmore et al. 1999). Twenty-six Protohistoric sites have been recorded in the Platte River Basin (Gilmore et al. 1999). Gilmore et al. (1999) discuss site types from open architectural, open camps, game drives, and kill sites, to ceremonial and scarred tree sites, that may be expected from the Protohistoric era to potentially relate to ethnohistorically known tribes in the region. By Protohistoric and into Historic times, Gilmore et al. (1999) indicate that tribes spreading westward across the Plains the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Sioux were in the region. These tribes displaced earlier Plains Apache and Kiowa, and overlapping Numic- speaking groups (the Ute, Shoshone, and Comanche) from the western mountains. Tribal ethnographic background is further discussed within the historic archaeological context developed for Colorado (Church et al. 2007). The themes of the prehistoric context (Gilmore et al. 1999), including consideration of Settlement Patterns, Paleodemography, Subsistence, Trade and Exchange, and Technology, still apply. HISTORIC OVERVIEW To those living in the U.S. power centers of the East Coast in the early nineteenth century, the area now known as Colorado was a distant, remote wilderness. The Spanish, however, had made forays into the region since the late eighteenth century, attempting to establish trading relationships with the Native American groups who occupied the area. Throughout the early nineteenth century, trading and trapping were the primary activities of the small non -Native Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 6 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado American population in the region. When precious metal deposits were discovered in the 1850s, miners, their families, and those who hoped to cash in on the mining industry flooded into Colorado. Although mining was the backbone of the economy of the state until the late nineteenth century, industries including farming, ranching, coal mining, and other support industries, arose in conjunction with efforts to extract precious metal from the earth. Immigrants from all over the country and around the world streamed into the territory to work in these burgeoning industries. After 1876 statehood, the late nineteenth century was a time of diversification for the Colorado economy. Farming, ranching, banking, transportation, tourism, and health industries grew in importance. Linked by statehood, the various regions of Colorado possess a common heritage, yet each subregion maintains distinctive characteristics and individualistic aspects of historical development. For this reason it can be important to approach the historic cultural resources in Colorado with both an understanding of how individual sites are shaped by regional and statewide processes and how the actions of people who occupied these sites helped shape and create these processes. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 brought about confusion over national borders between the governments of Spain and the United States, which resulted in Spanish patrols of the northern plains and the present site of Denver until 1819. That year the Adams-Onis Treaty was signed by both governments, resolving the dispute over where the boundary between U.S. frontiers and Spanish colonial lands was located, and U.S. exploration of the region greatly increased (Mehls 1984). These explorations were first concentrated along the South Platte River. During the Oregon Migration of the 1840s, particular attention was paid in this region to the discovery of alternative routes for travelers moving west (Mehls 1984). The U.S. military also patrolled the northern Colorado plains to control the Native Americans in the region and reduce the threat of raiding to immigrants, traders, trappers, and prospectors traveling through the area. Several regional trading forts were established in the 1830s and early 1840s, including Fort Vasquez, Fort St. Vrain, Fort Lupton, and Fort Jackson. The presence of these forts made northeastern Colorado a popular winter and exchange destination for trappers (Mehls 1984). In the 1840s, the traders and trappers fell on hard times when the fur market crashed. Simultaneously, traders experienced a severe reduction in the number of pelts they were able to obtain due to over -trapping of certain species. Many regional forts closed in the late 1840s, and the trading entrepreneurs moved elsewhere. Afterward, a sparse number of mountain men settled in the region, selling necessary goods to emigrating settlers traveling through the region, or farming (Mehls 1984). The Colorado gold rush of 1859 attracted a completely different wave of people to the northern plains regions. Because of the sheer volume of fortune seekers to the area, the Denver basin became the cradle of permanent U.S. settlement of what would become Colorado (Mehls 1984). Unsuccessful miners tried their hand at farming the plains, and entrepreneurs chasing the growing population's need for goods and services were integral to the establishment of Denver, as was the discovery of gold in Dry Creek, Cherry Creek, and Fountain Creek Canyon. Although the small and quickly depleted gold deposits accessible in those areas eventually produced a reverse migration, many people, especially commercial business owners, chose to stay to permanently establish a supply center for mountain mining communities in the southern Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 7 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Rocky Mountains (Mehls 1984). The introduction of the railroad in 1870 finally connected Denver to a nationwide system of cities and transportation. During this period of settlement, great conflict also resulted between U.S. settlers and soldiers and the Native American groups who had previously moved freely through northeastern Colorado. One of the most disastrous of these violent encounters occurred at Sand Creek in November 1864. The UPRR first crossed into Weld County in 1867 connecting Colorado and Nebraska near Julesburg (Lynch 2015). More of the railroad was completed connecting Denver to Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 1869 near present-day Interstate 25. The towns of Greeley, La Salle, and Julesburg, Colorado, were developed due to the railroad boom. The post -1900 period along Colorado's Front Range and on the northern plains is characterized by advances in agricultural techniques. Irrigated crops were dominated by sugar beets (Beta vulgaris), and dryland farming techniques and crops were improved. With the advent of the automobile, the tourist trade increased, and railroads began to decline in importance as many goods were instead shipped by truck. During the first half of the twentieth century, Denver became a large urban area specializing in regional energy development, distribution of goods and services, and a regional administrative center with both state and federal offices. Weld County was first established in 1861, under the Territory of Colorado (Weld County 2009). A majority of the county came to be settled by people of German descent who migrated from Russia in the early 1900s. These immigrants largely first worked as railroad workers and in the sugar beet fields. The sugar beet industry began in 1902 with the establishment of sugar factories in Greeley and Eaton, and later in Windsor, Fort Lupton, and Johnstown. Weld County has grown to be the third leading agricultural area in the United States, and the leading producer of cattle, grain, and sugar beets (Weld County 2009). The county is also the second leading area in Colorado for the production of oil and gas. Irrigation in Colorado Because of its semi -arid climate, the development of agriculture in Colorado was initially hampered by a lack of water. The earliest agricultural irrigation ditches in Colorado were generally small in scale and were constructed by early Spanish and Mexican settlers or by operations associated with early Euro-American trading posts in the area (Holleran 2005:9,11). After the influx of settlers to Colorado associated with the Gold Rush, settlement of the plains region by Euro-Americans began in earnest. Many who had initially tried their hand at mining and abandoned it for various reasons, settled on the plains, and established ranches and farms (Mehls 1984:20). These early agricultural operations were generally located near watercourses where water could be easily obtained. Those who located farther away from natural waterways, or sought to use less arable land, began to construct small pioneer ditches. These ditches were the first generation of agricultural waterworks and were generally small and simply constructed. These early structure types were typically designated as farm or ranch ditches that served single users and mutual ditches that were operated by ditch companies and were sometimes owned by multiple users (Holleran 2005:12-13). Ditches were also constructed by agricultural colonies that were formed of groups of settlers that came to Colorado intent on building agricultural communities (Holleran 2005:14). The most successful of these was the Union Colony at what Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 8 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado eventually became Greeley, Colorado, that established an extensive irrigation system by 1877 (Holleran 2005:14-15). The development of irrigation in Colorado motivated the formation of a unique system of water rights administration that would become the model for many western states (Holleran 2005:17). Water rights were based on a system of prior appropriation, a concept related to the chronological order of water rights claims that was recognized by the territorial legislature in 1864 and the United States Congress in 1866 (Holleran 2005:18). Although the amount of water that could be used was technically limited, those with less senior water rights could only claim their water from what was left over from those with more senior rights (Holleran 2005:18). The system was administered by appointments of a state engineer and water commissioners (Holleran 2005:19). The success of the Union Colony's ambitious project (at Greeley), combined with prior settlement of more favorable areas (in terms of access to water), encouraged the construction of more extensive and complicated ditch networks to efficiently irrigate land during in the 1880s (Holleran 2005:25). Unlike pioneer ditches, these systems were too expensive to be built by individual farmers or even mutual ditch companies. As a result, the first commercial canal companies were established (Holleran 2005:22, 25). The earliest companies had easy access to capital often through relationships with British investors or railroad companies looking to increase the value of their grant lands before selling them (Holleran 2005:22). The access to capital made the construction of large systems possible; however, these extensive structures often required significant upkeep and maintenance. These sizeable costs crippled many commercial canal companies and they became a losing proposition for their investors (Holleran 2005:25-27). Large commercial canal systems further depleted already limited supplies of water in Colorado. The doctrine of prior appropriation worked against many of the companies which were often left with little water and were unable to fulfill the obligations that they had made to irrigators. Companies often tried to ameliorate these conditions by purchasing ditches with prior appropriations or purchasing water rights from senior holders (Holleran 2005:25). The practice of the purchase of water rights emerged as a consequence of the liberal nature of early water appropriation in Colorado. Early appropriations were often for amounts of water that exceeded actual stream flows and even potential irrigation structure capacity (Holleran 2005:21). The outsized appropriations were not an issue in the early days of pioneer structures as farmers often used only what they needed; however, by the 1880s, the rise of corporate irrigation companies and the ever-increasing need for water began to strain the available supply (Holleran 2005:21). Combined with the tendency of the water courts to uphold early appropriations, regardless of their size, the buying and selling of water rights became influenced by a speculation market (Holleran 2005). Those who were able to purchase older appropriations had the right to use the original structure, divert water from the original structure into another, or, in cases where the structures shared the same stream source, even reduce the diversion of one in order increase the diversion of another, a practice upheld by the State Supreme Court (Field 1902; Holleran 2005). Those who purchased or continued to maintain original structures had the ability to enlarge their ditches and canals under the original appropriation up to the original decreed amount. This practice is in contrast to those that had to enlarge their ditches Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 9 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado under separate appropriations, one of which would be a less senior appropriation, often resulting in the inability of the structure to run at full capacity due to the prior claims of other irrigation features in the area (Field 1902). Although many irrigators saw the need for storage of large quantities of water far off in the future, by the late nineteenth century it was apparent that irrigation companies with later appropriations were often unable to fulfill their obligations to water users. Water availability was constrained due to high water consumption by those with prior appropriation rights and/or periods of drought, both of which drastically reduced water availability. In some cases water users successfully sued irrigation companies for not delivering their promised allotments. These conditions firmly established the need for reservoirs in Colorado by the late 1880s (Holleran 2005 :26). Although the structures built by commercial companies were not profitable financial ventures, the impact of these systems on agricultural productivity was undeniable. Most of the ditch and canal systems constructed by commercial entities were too important to abandon and were absorbed by mutual companies or irrigation districts, many of which still manage the systems today (Holleran 2007:27). The legacy of irrigation systems of all types in Colorado is the growth of a large agricultural sector that would have been impossible without access to water. By 1890, more than one million acres of farmland in the state were irrigated and by 1910, Colorado surpassed the state of California in terms of the amount of land under irrigation, and had the most in the United States (Holleran 2005:7). Commercial operations were also linked to the development of the sugar beet industry, which became one of the most important agricultural products in the state and in Weld County in particular (Mehls and Mehls 1988). PREVIOUS WORK LITERATURE REVIEW SWCA requested GIS data from the Colorado OAHP on October 24, 2016, and received the GIS files on October 26, 2016. The study area included a 1 -mile buffer around the defined project area. Additionally, the GIS data were compared against the OAHP database COMPASS on October 31, 2016. Four previous inventories have been conducted within the files search area and are listed in the OAHP database (Table 1). These consist of two surveys for bridge replacements, one survey for a pipeline, and one inventory of Colorado farms and ranches in Weld and Broomfield Counties. None of these previous inventories intersect with the current project area. Eleven cultural resources, all historic, have been identified within the file search area and are listed in the OAHP database (Table 2). Historic sites are typically related to the agricultural economy of the region. These sites include four irrigation ditches, two farms or homesteads, two railroads, and one railroad station. Two historic bridges are also included. Two of the resources, Platte Valley Canal; Evans No. 2 Ditch (5WL2 188.12) and Lupton Bottom Ditch (5WL2652.9), have been recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Of the remaining resources, seven have been recommended or determined not Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 10 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado eligible for the NRHP, and one site remains unevaluated (needs data is table below). One of the farms/homesteads, 5WL7722, is identified as a Centennial Farm and does not have an associated eligibility assessment. Only one of the 11 previously recorded resources, Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 (5WL6 107), is within the project area; however, this portion of the ditch has never been previously field - documented as a historic site. The resource is discussed in detail below. The William Shortley Homestead (5LW1415) is directly opposite the project area on the south side of CR 22%2. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 11 Weld County, Colorado A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Table 1. Previous Inventories 1o;aea;uo3 Western Historical Studies, Inc. Centennial Archaeology partment of Historic Preservation Consultants i. O at k, Stephen R. and Kristin A. [offecker, John F. Leven] Etke M Daniel Ct 0 Cr)II C N Cr) it N < 0 44 cpansion Pip Inventory, ] Ad and Adar [ Archaeology Survey for I ment, Weld County, Coloi ►urce Inventory of I A Union Pacific 85 in Weld Couni I85-3[10]) Survey Report, Weld Count) Ranch Inventory, Weld and I Is j i el00 ON QT O O O 4T 4 en O DAHP ID tn C4 Ini MC.CPO.1 Z Z w 4 E.] x U . Contains Privileged Information —Do Not Release Weld County, Colorado A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites In Project Area? O O O O O O O O 107.2 O O Z 7 Z 7 7 77777 Not eligible, field Not eligible, field Needs data, officially Not eligible, officially Not eligible, field ligible, field; supports -ear resource ligible, field; supports -ear resource 7, 713 trs C) Not eligible, field; does not support linear resource L Not eligible, officially Centennial Farm E1 O 7 Railroad siding Irrigation canal Ct Irrigation canal Irrigation canal _ lgugo uolieapai �C) CaH to Ty] ct a) ct o CU _ _ x z z CI 0 U •9 O U •9 O U •9t i Historic U •r• O U •�t� O U .Tc•� U .t9t 4 0IJOTSIFI U .crcy� U .rte 'O V/ . r1 ,O V I . ^� 'O V l •r• Cl, z ••••••x V J •^� V J .r. V J ••1 'O V J •al V J •rte X X X Site Name Denver Pacific South Platte Supply Canal; Coalridge Ditch Denver Pacific; Union Pacific Railroad Sullivan Ditch Bridge Weld County Bridge 26/25A (Centennial lroad H Platte Valley Canal Ditch • --an Site Number 00 - 00 M O Stvl 1526 and 1526.2 Q1 O Cl No Q� C \O C O- CT N L2652.9 I 5WL3046 [07.1 � 5WL7417 L7722 V4 00 00 " O N r- -2 d I- ct Ct 4) C • rN .rN 3 U 4-4 4) fag 5- U c�3 U V) O '1O N '.d Ct C) O 4 Contains Privileged Information —Do Not Release A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Historic Linear Resources Since the 1970s the approach taken in recording linear resources has changed, and as a result, the previous evaluations for irrigation features and other linear resources, and the way that information is stored in the OAHP COMPASS system, is often unclear. Most previously recorded linear features have only been evaluated based on the segment recorded, and not the resource as a whole. The current OAHP guidance indicates that linear resources not recorded in their entirety are treated as eligible for NRHP inclusion for the purposes of cultural resource reviews, and individual segments can be evaluated as supporting or not supporting that eligibility. LAND PATENT SEARCH The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records database was also searched for the project area. The records indicate that three patents were granted for portions of sections in which the project area is located between 1867 and 1885 (BLM 2016). Two of these patents were granted to private individuals under the Scrip Warrant Act and one was granted under the Homestead Act of 1862. All of the land within the survey area is currently privately owned. Patents issued under the Scrip Warrant Act were given to military veterans. The lands often were not patented by the veterans themselves, but sold to other settlers who patented the claim in their place. The earliest settlement in the region coincided with the closing of some of the Army forts along the South Platte Trail, the signing of the Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek, and the partial end of the Indian Wars on the plains of northern Colorado (Mehls 1984). HISTORIC MAP REVIEW SWCA also conducted examination of the historic GLO plats and historic USGS topographic maps to evaluate the potential for the presence of historic features within the project area. The original GLO plat for T2N, R67W dates to 1863. The plat depicts the north —south -trending South Platte River crossing the eastern half of both Sections 1 and 12. The "Road to Denver" is shown generally following the west bank of the river through the western half of both sections. Although no evidence of the trail was visible on aerial imagery provided by GoogleEarth, it is possible this trail may be within the current project area. The USGS topographic Platteville 1:24,000 -scale quadrangle (1949) map was also reviewed. Examination of this map revealed several features including houses and other structures associated with the William Shortley Homestead (5LW1415), several county roads including CR 221/2, several ditches including the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1, as well as the UPRR. The only feature within the current project area is Meadow Island Ditch No 1. The house located in the northern portion of the project area and the gravel road leading to it are not depicted on this map. According to the Weld County Assessor, the single-family residence located within the project area was constructed in 2005. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 14 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/RESEARCH DESIGN OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this cultural resource inventory is to assist Reclamation, the NCWCD, and the project proponents in the identification, evaluation, and management of identified cultural resources that might be affected by the proposed inclusion of the property in the NCWCD. In general, the objectives of the inventory were to 1) identify all cultural and historic resources within inventoried areas; 2) make initial recommendations regarding identified resources' eligibility for nomination to the NRHP; and 3) make the appropriate recommendations regarding the treatment of all identified resources. The inventory was undertaken to help ensure Reclamation's compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 (as amended). EXPECTED RESULTS The project area is located in an environmental setting that is likely to contain historic farming or ranching sites, and historic canals and railroads based on the previous research. Due to surface disturbance from plowing and other agricultural activities in the project area, it is not expected that significant prehistoric resources remain in disturbed surface exposures. It is anticipated that any prehistoric resources that would be located within the current project area would most likely represent isolated artifacts or features. Although historic cultural resources have been previously recorded in the project vicinity, the continued agricultural use and development of the area are anticipated to have largely disturbed much of the surface archaeological material. Identifiable historic resources are expected to be represented by historic artifact scatters, irrigation ditches, and structures associated with agricultural operations. FIELD METHODS The field methods used in this survey followed Colorado OAHP guidelines for conducting cultural resource inventories in Colorado. Field personnel inspected the inventory area using a series of parallel, 20 -meter (m) -wide transects across the inventory area; however, survey transects were adjusted when necessary to ensure full coverage of the inventory areas. Archaeologists examined the ground surface for artifacts, features, and other prehistoric or historic material evidence such as charcoal -stained sediments, as well as aboveground features and structures. Special attention was paid to animal burrows, where present, to assess the potential for subsurface archeological deposits. Landscape features such as depressions, ditches, mounds, and areas of differential vegetation were also examined in particular for evidence of the exposure of archaeological materials. Surface visibility varied somewhat throughout the survey area, with some fields under cultivation and others exhibiting weeds, medium to tall grasses, and the remnants of corn crops. Overall, the extent of bare ground visibility averaged between 0 and 80 percent. Weather was favorable for the field survey, with mostly sunny skies and warm temperatures. No artifacts were collected during the course of this inventory. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 15 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado SITE AND ISOLATED FIND RECORDING In the event that cultural resources are encountered, the following field methods are used. The project archaeologists first establish the extent and boundaries of a site by flagging any cultural materials in a 30-m radius from the find. Appropriate data are collected for all sites and isolated finds to allow for laboratory completion of the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Forms. Sites are mapped with a Trimble GEO-XT global positioning system (GPS) unit with sub -meter accuracy. When detailed mapping or remapping is required, all pertinent linear site features such as site boundaries, roads, fence lines, and vegetation communities, as well as point features such as the site datum, features, and tools, are mapped with the Trimble GPS unit. Resulting GPS data are processed using Trimble Pathfinder software and projected into Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 13 North, North American Datum 1983. All GPS data are exported into ArcMap 10.3 shapefiles and plotted onto the associated geo-referenced USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle to ensure accuracy and produce location maps of all resources. In addition to site mapping, sites are photographed in overview. Associated features and diagnostic artifacts are described, measured, recorded with GPS units, and photographed (where photography is illustrative), as appropriate. Environmental setting, depositional context, topography, and geographical location are also recorded for each site. Evaluation of linear resources follows the guidance set forth in the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) guidance document: Where to Draw the Line: The Truth about Linears as We Know It (SHPO n.d.). Newly recorded segments of previously identified linear resources were assigned new segment numbers. Boundaries for recorded segments were defined by the limit of the resource physically inspected in the field. Where an existing Management Data Form (MDF) existed for the overall linear resource, only linear component forms were completed for the newly recorded segments. Where MDFs were found to be out of date or when there was no MDF (e.g., for newly recorded segments), new MDFs were completed in addition to linear component forms for the recorded segment. Linear resources that were not field -recorded in their entirety, and did not have a formal determination of NRHP eligibility, are considered eligible for the NRHP for the purposes of Section 106 review. Individual segments that fall within the inventory corridor are evaluated as either supporting or not supporting the eligibility of the overall linear resource. Similarly, project effects are determined based on the effect to the impacted segment. RESULTS On October 26, 2016, SWCA cultural resource specialists Nicole Kromarek and Jenny Stokowski covering the entire 191 -acre project area. Within the inventory areas, SWCA recorded two sites or segments of sites. The sites include an unrecorded segment of the previously documented Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 (5WL6107.2) and the majority of one newly recorded irrigation ditch (5WL8064.1). Both of the recorded resources are located on private lands. The cultural resource management forms for these sites are provided in Appendix A (detached), and the site locations are illustrated in the map provided in Appendix B (detached). Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 16 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado 5WL6107.2: MEADOW ISLAND DITCH NO. 1 Site Type: Association: Site Size: NRHP Recommendation: Historic Ditch/Irrigation 1866 —Present 123 by 10 feet (1,230 feet2) Non -Supporting Segment if Site is Eligible Management Recommendation: No Further Work Description and Previous Recording SWCA newly recorded a segment of the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 in the current inventory area (Figures 4 and 5). The Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 is a single -channel earthen ditch that draws water from a diversion on the South Platte River in Section 19, T2N, R66W, and trends generally north for approximately 8 linear miles to the Beeman Ditch in Section 23, T3N, R67W. A farmstead is to the northwest of the segment and CR 23 is 400 feet to the west. A berm with a two -track road across the top parallels the east side of the ditch. Two north —south - trending fence lines are present along both property lines. A gate, which crosses the berm, is present within the southern fence line. Vegetation in the vicinity of the recorded segment is harvested agricultural fields to the south, as well as thick grasses and weeds along the ditch and berm edges. The areas to the east and west of the ditch, on the north side of the agricultural fields, is heavily overgrown with tall grasses and weeds. Ground surface visibility is poor along the banks of the ditch due to density of vegetation. Vegetation on the top of the berm, however, is much shorter, allowing for better ground visibility. Surface sediments on the top of the berm are a brown loam. The ditch is in fair condition and appears to be fairly well maintained. Figure 4. 5WL6107.2 segment overview, facing south. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 17 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) Base Map' USES Topographic Map USA Topo_Maps, an Online Service C2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed Figure 5.5WL6107.2 site sketch map. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 18 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado COMPASS identifies one previously recorded segment of the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1. Segment 1 was documented by Centennial Archaeology in 2009 for the Suncor Energy Rocky Mountain crude system expansion pipeline project. This previously documented segment is 2 miles south of the current project segment, south of Volmar. The 1,505 -foot -long segment was recommended as not supporting the overall eligibility of the linear resource since it did not incorporate any notable engineering or construction attributes (Figure 6). No other portions of the site are previously field -documented. The segment in the current project area is of the same construction and appearance as that previously documented to the south. Figure 6. 5WL6107.1 detail of the Meadow Island Ditch, facing south-southeast, as previously recorded south of the project area by Centennial Archaeology in 2009. Survey Results SWCA documented the current segment of 5WL6107 on October 26, 2016. The proposed project area crosses the ditch once along a proposed easement connecting to CR 23. The segment consists of a 123 -foot -long north -trending ditch, situated between two agricultural fields and a farmstead. A berm with a two -track field access road on the top parallels the east side of the ditch. Water filled the resource during the current recording. The canal itself is approximately 6 feet deep from the top to the water level and is approximately 10 feet wide at water level, and approximately 20 feet wide across the top. The berm is approximately 16 feet wide across the top and is approximately 6 feet high on the east side. The banks of the canal are covered by dense grasses. No other structural features or artifacts associated with the canal were observed within the current survey area (Figure 7). Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 19 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Figure 7. 5WL6107.2 detail of the newly recorded segment of Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 with a farmstead in the background, facing northwest. Historic Background According to Centennial Archaeology, the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 was constructed by the Meadow Island Ditch Company in 1866. John S. Wheeler, who had a significant history in Colorado, was president of the Meadow Island Ditch Company during the construction of the ditch (Gantt et al. 2009). Water was first appropriated for the ditch in 1866, and was adjudicated approximately 17 years later, in 1883 (Gantt et al. 2009). The original ditch was 2.75 miles long, 5 feet wide at the bottom, and 3 feet deep. In 1876, the depth of the ditch was increased by 1 foot. The current ditch segment is beyond 2.75 miles from the head of the ditch, suggesting that it is part of a later expansion. NRHP Eligibility Recommendation The previously recorded segment of Meadow Island Ditch No. 1, which presents the same structural attributes as the newly recorded segment, was previously found to not support the potential NRHP eligibility of the resource; SHPO concurred. The linear resource, 5WL6107, was not otherwise evaluated in its entirety. The previously recorded segment was found to present no significant structural or engineering features, no important connections to the events important to area history, and only cursory connection to a person important in Colorado's history. The newly recorded segment is of the same situation and, consistent with the previous recording, is also recommended non -supporting of any overall NRHP eligibility for which 5WL6107 may qualify. The current segment, based on documentary evidence, further appears to be a later extension of the ditch rather than part of the original length. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 20 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Management Recommendation The newly recorded resource segment is recommended as non -supporting of the NRHP eligibility of the entire resource and no additional work is recommended. 5WL8064.1 Site Type Association Site Size: NRHP Recommendation Historic Ditch/Irrigation Unknown —Present 7,035 by 4 feet (28,140 feet2) Non -Supporting Segment if Site is Eligible Management Recommendation No Further Work Site Description SWCA newly recorded a segment of an unnamed irrigation field ditch (Figures 8 and 9). The ditch consists of a single -channel concrete -lined ditch serving croplands in the northern half of Section 12, T2N, R67W. The western, north —south -trending portion of the ditch is paralleled to the west by a gravel road and to the east by a transmission line. The southern portion of the ditch is paralleled by CR 221/2 to the south and the eastern portion of the ditch is paralleled by a north —south -trending gravel road. Vegetation in the vicinity of the recorded segment consists of harvested and fallow agricultural fields; dense grasses are also present along the edges of the ditch. Vegetation density varies along the sides of the ditch, allowing for fair to poor ground surface visibility. Surface sediments are a brown loam. Overall, the ditch is in good condition; it is well -maintained and likely currently in use although no water was present at the time of survey. Figure 8. 5WL8064.1 overview, facing east. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 21 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado kanciiti s }a DS -5, Figure 9. 5WL8064.1 site sketch map. a Linear Resource Contour Line (10 feet) inventory Area Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 22 Base Map- USGS Topographic Map USA_Topo_Maps, Esri Online Service e 2013 National Geographic Society. i-cubed A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Survey Results SWCA documented 5WL8064.1 on October 26, 2016. The resource consists of a concrete -lined V-shaped channel that borders the edges of an agricultural field. Beginning in the northern portion of the project area, the ditch extends west from the gravel road along the northern boundary of a corn field for approximately 815 feet. At this point, the ditch turns south, for approximately 1,310 feet along the western edge of the field, then turns west again for 860 feet, then turns south again for approximately 775 feet. At this point, the ditch turns to the west for a short distance, under a gravel road, where it then continues on the west side of the road, trending south for another 390 feet (Figure 10). Approximately 35 feet north of CR 22'/2, the ditch connects to a second east —west -trending concrete -lined segment. This second portion of the ditch begins at the gravel road located in the eastern portion of the project area and curves south along the eastern edge of an agricultural field, then turns west where it parallels the north side CR 22'/2 and the south side of the field. The ditch continues west, outside of the current project area. The ditch measures 3 feet 10 inches wide across the top, 1 foot wide along the bottom, and is approximately 2 feet deep. No water was present at the time of recording. Overall, the ditch is in good condition. Some areas in the western portion of the alignment are cracked due to the large trees growing along it. In most areas, the edges of the ditch are heavily overgrown with grasses and weeds, notably in the southern and eastern portions, and soil has accumulated in the bottom. Figure 10. 5WL8064.1 detail of where ditch crosses under gravel road, facing east. Historic Background 5WL8064.1 does not appear on any historic maps. The Colorado's Decision Support Systems website indicates that the 66.75 acres of land that is irrigated by the field ditch is fed by the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1. The property on which the currently recorded segment of the ditch is located was originally patented in 1867 to David Ayer through the Scrip Warrant Act of 1855. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 23 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Ayer then sold the land to Nancy Gallemore (BLM 2016 [1867]:Accession MW -0359-024). It was not clear when the properties were sold to the current landowners. NRHP Eligibility Recommendation 5WL8064.1 is a segment of a field ditch positioned to irrigate the agricultural fields that it borders, and draws from the Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 in the NWIA of Section 12, beyond the current project area. Although 5WL6107 was originally constructed 1866-1876, it remains an earthen structure. The field ditch structure is modernly upgraded with concrete lining, probably to stop seepage as well as to simplify maintenance. This segment of 5WL8064.1 presents no significant structural or engineering features, no identifiable connections to the events or persons important to area history, and no relevant archaeological remains. The segment is recommended as non -supporting of any overall NRHP eligibility for which 5WL8064.I may qualify. The current segment, based on documentary evidence, further appears to be modernly altered and not original although this field likely was irrigated during the Historic period, given the original land patent year. Management Recommendations Because the newly recorded resource segment is recommended as non -supporting of the NRHP eligibility of the resource as a whole, no additional work is recommended. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SWCA conducted an intensive, Class III cultural resource inventory on behalf of J&T Consulting, Inc., to fulfill the requirements for inclusion of a property in the NCWCD and for access to water resources managed by the Reclamation. Since the inclusion of the property in the NCWCD requires authorization from Reclamation, this action constitutes a federal undertaking and therefore the survey was requested to fulfill Reclamation's obligations in meeting Section 106 requirements under the NHPA. Pursuant to Section 106, the purpose of this inventory was to locate and identify any cultural resources located within the project area and assess the potential effects to cultural resources resulting from this federal undertaking. The Class III inventory covered 191 acres of private land located northwest of Fort Lupton in Sections 1 and 12, T2N, R67W, in Weld County, Colorado. A segment of the historic Meadow Island Ditch No. 1 (5WL6107.2) and a field ditch (5WL8064.1) were located and newly recorded by SWCA during fieldwork. Both of the newly recorded ditch segments have been recommended as not supporting the overall NRHP eligibility of the overall historic linear resource. Because both resources are recommended as non -supporting of NRHP eligibility, no historic properties are located within the project area and no additional work is recommended. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 24 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado REFERENCES CITED Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2016 Official Website of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management General Land Office Records. Online database available at: http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx. Accessed October 28, 2016. Church, Minette C., Steven Baker, Bonnie Clark, Richard Carrillo, Jonathon Horn, Carl Spath, David Guilfoyle, and E. Steven Cassells 2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado. Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) n.d. Where to Draw the Line: The Truth about Linears as We Know It. Available at: http://www.hi storyco lorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdf s/Forms_Linears.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2015. Crabb, James A. 1980 Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Northern Part. National Cooperative Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Field, John Ellis 1902 Irrigation from Big Thompson River. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Gantt, E., M. Tedrow, and K. Gensmer 2009 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Management Data Form, 5 WL6107.1. Prepared by Centennial Archaeology, Fort Collins, Colorado. Copies available from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver. Gilmore, Kevin P., Marcia Tate, Mark Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado. Holleran, Michael 2005 Historic Context for Irrigation and Water Supply Ditches and Canals in Colorado. Prepared by the Colorado Center for Preservation Research, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center. Kuchler, August W. 1964 The Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. American Geographical Society, Special Research Publication No. 36. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 25 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado 1975 The Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. In Distribution of Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians by BLM Physiographic Regions and A. W. Kuchler's Associations for the Eleven Western States, edited by S. R. Bernard and K. F. Brown. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Lynch, Tom 2015 Railroad History of Weld County. Available online through the Weld County: Celebrating 150 Years website: http://wvvw.weldcounty 150.org/TransportationinWeldCounty/RailroadHistoryofW eldCounty.html. Accessed September 23, 2015. McFaul, Michael, Karen Lynn Traugh, Grant D. Smith, William Doering, and Christian J. Zier 1994 Geoarchaeologic Analysis of South Platte River Terraces: Kersey, Colorado. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 9(5):345-374. Mehls, Carol Drake, and Steven F. Mehls 1988 Weld County, Colorado Historic Agricultural Context. Prepared for the Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Mehls, Steven F. 1984 Colorado Plains Historic Context. Prepared for the Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Natural Resources Conservation Service 2016 Web Soil Survey: Soil Map. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed November 2, 2016. Tweto, Ogden 1979 Geologic Map of Colorado. Available at: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_68589.htm. Accessed March 24, 2016. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1949 Platteville, Colorado. Topographic map, 1:24,000 -scale. United States. Wanner, James, and Robert H. Brunswig, Jr. 1992 A Late Archaic Skeleton from the Northeastern Colorado High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 37(141):367 3 83 . Weld County, Colorado 2009 Weld County, Colorado History. Available at: http://www.co.weld.co.us/AboutWeld/index.html. Accessed September 24, 2015. Western Regional Climate Center 2016 Ft Lupton SE, Colorado (053027). Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?co3027. Accessed October 28, 2016. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 26 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado Wormington, Marie 1984 The Frazier Site, Colorado. In Paleo-Indian Sites in the Colorado Piedmont, University of Colorado Boulder Field Trip 2, August 11-12, 1984. Zier, Christian J., and Steven M. Kalasz 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Arkansas River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 27 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release 28 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX A (Detached — Agency Copies Only) Colorado Cultural Resource Site Forms Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B (Detached — Agency Copies Only) Resource Location Maps Contains Privileged Information —Do Not Release A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado a 025 0.5 1 1:24,000 Base Map: USGS 7.5` Topographic Map USA Jopofilaps, Esri Online Service 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Township 02N Range 67W Quadrangle Platteville. CO (1970) Weld County, CO N Figure B1. Resource locations at 1:24,000 -scale showing the inventoried area. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release B-1 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Bennett Annexation to Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release B-2 May 15, 2017 Mr. Peter Hays Environmental Protection Specialist State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, & Safety 1313 Sherman Street — Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to William M. Lewis Dear Mr. Hays, Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. has received the Division's adequacy review comments letter dated April 5, 2017. Below is the response to the comments received from Mr. William M. Lewis. Ms. Lewis's comments were as follows on his letter: 1. My grass and alfalfa fields lie adjacent to the pit project. They have high groundwater. The land has high yield of grass and alfalfa but, with any significant rise in the groundwater (e.g. 6 inches or a foot), areas of these fields would be flooded or saturated within the root zone and therefore not useful for agriculture. It is not clear to me that this issue has been addressed by Colorado Constructors. Response: We discussed the groundwater issues with Mr. Lewis on May 12, 2017 and gave a copy of the groundwater model report and results to him to review. The area where the Lewis property is located is within a potential shadow of the slurry wall per the ground water model results. NCC has installed monitor wells around the perimeter of the proposed slurry wall and gravel pit. The monitor wells have been measured weekly since April and will continue to be monitored prior to the installation of the slurry wall and also after the slurry wall is installed. If there is mounding or shadow effects from the slurry wall that are outside of the historic levels of the monitoring wells then a perimeter drain will be evaluated and designed to mitigate and keep the mounding and shadow effects within the normal fluctuation of the existing ground water levels. Mr. Lewis indicated he also had monitor wells on his property and we asked if we could also monitor those wells. Mr. Lewis said that NCC could also monitor his wells. 2. I have an irrigation well on my property that is regulated by the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District. The well is 30 feet deep, and the distance to alluvial water is about 1 Y2 feet during summer and about 3 feet during winter. The well is about 70 yards from the property line separating my property from the Bennett Pit project. It is located on a high point of local topography. I am concerned about a change in water level affecting V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Mr. William M. Lewis 5/15/17 -3- the well. The well is very valuable as a source of irrigation water and yields approximately 1000 gallons per minute. Response: The response to Mr. Lewis's first comment is also appropriate for his well. Please see the 1st comment response and we discussed this with him at our meeting on May 12, 2017. 3. The pit project will cause deflection of floodwaters from the pit area, which is now floodplain, to lower points on the river, particularly those immediately adjacent or near to the Bennett Pit project. I am concerned about increased frequency and severity of flooding on my property as a result of the deflection of floodwaters from the Bennett Pit area. Response: We discussed the potential for deflection of flood waters with Mr. Lewis at our meeting on May 12, 2017. The pit will not deflect floodwaters from the pit area to the adjacent property. As the pit is mined it will be reclaimed. Temporary stockpiles will be placed so they are parallel to the floodwaters so as not to dam up water and force it to an adjacent property. The final reclamation of each mining cell will have an emergency overflow spillway so that floodwaters can enter the pit cell during the peak of the flood and exit the pit as the floodwaters attenuate. 4. I do not understand why the access of the Bennett Pit project would involve a truck exit to the junction of Roads 23 and 24 where Road 24 ends. This area is already congested; it is far too small to accommodate extensive truck traffic because the turns that need to be made by the oncoming traffic and the exiting trucks. The exit for this project should be to the south. This type of access to Road 23 is not consistent with the developing residential neighborhood in this area. Response: We discussed the proposed access point with Mr. Lewis at our meeting on May 12, 2017. The proposed operation does plan to access at this point, however the applicant cannot submit to Weld County until an approval from DRMS is obtained for a use by special review permit from Weld County. The applicant has had a pre - application meeting with Weld County and understands this access location has to be approved by Weld County if the applicant submits a Use by Special Review permit application to Weld County. The applicant may also annex into the City of Fort Lupton and if this occurs the traffic and access issues will be reviewed by the City of Fort Lupton. The applicant is determining if they will submit their application to Weld County or if they will annex to the City of Fort Lupton and submit their application to Fort Lupton. The applicant has conducted a traffic study for the intersection and will provide the study to Weld County or Fort Lupton for review when those applications can be turned in. The number of gravel trucks that were documented in the traffic study by the traffic counters was 20 trucks on CR 23 for the entire day and 18 trucks on CR 24 for the entire day. We understand that this count likely went down because Weld County has finished mining the Koenig pit. The applicant will be working with Weld County and/or the City of Fort Lupton to review the current and future traffic at the intersection. The majority of anticipated traffic from this proposed operation will go south on CR 23 or west on CR 24. V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Mr. William M. Lewis 5/15/17 -3- The current speed limit on CR 23 is 55 mph. This can also be evaluated with Weld County and/or the City of Fort Lupton to see if a speed reduction could be put in place to slow traffic down in this area. NCC will be requesting a speed reduction. Turning radii at the access and the intersection can be lengthened to ensure that turning radii of the trucks can be accommodated. 5. Batch Plant. A batch plant is a part of the proposed project. The batch plant is not necessary for removal of gravel. It is an industrial activity superimposed on the gravel removal business. It will increase traffic and make noise and smells. The agricultural nature of this area and its zoning are not consistent with creation of a batch plant. Response: We discussed the proposed batch plant with Mr. Lewis at our meeting on May 12, 2017. The batch plant is no longer being considered at the proposed Bennett Pit by NCC as they have another location that works better for their operations. 6. Setbacks. The map that I have seen of the Bennett Pit project shows virtually no setback from the river edge. A setback should be created for wildlife access to undeveloped areas on either side and avoid excessive restriction of the river with or flood. Restriction will increase velocity going downstream, and erode banks on my property. Response: We discussed the setbacks with Mr. Lewis at our meeting on May 12, 2017. The final reclamation of each mining cell will have an emergency overflow spillway so that floodwaters can enter the pit cell during the peak of the flood and exit the pit as the floodwaters attenuate. The locations where the setbacks are smallest are the locations for the emergency spillways. No restrictions of the river are being created as the pit top of slope elevations will remain the same as the existing ground as it sits today. The levels of water in the reclaimed reservoirs will be lower than the existing ground where flood storage would be created not diminished or restricted. A floodplain study has also been provided to the DRMS that includes the emergency spillway design. Thank you for your consideration of our responses to the comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if you need additional information. Sincerely, 1) J.C. York, P.E. J&T Consulting, Inc. hod" 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 May 15, 2017 Mr. Peter Hays Environmental Protection Specialist State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, & Safety 1313 Sherman Street — Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Veronica Cantrell Letters and Marcelo Ferreira Dear Mr. Hays, Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. has received the Division's adequacy review comments letter dated April 5, 2017. Below is the response to the comments received from Ms. Veronica Cantrell and Mr. Marcelo Ferreira. Ms. Cantrell's comments were as follows on her first letter: 1. The proposed gravel mining operation clearly shows trucks accessing the intersection of CR 23 & 24. Per Janet Lundquist (Support Services Manager — Weld County Public Works) no application has been filed with her department requesting this access. She further indicated that an application for this intersection would cause the County to review current traffic generation and perform a more in depth study. Response: The proposed operation does plan to access at this point, however the applicant cannot submit to Weld County until an approval from DRMS is obtained for a use by special review permit from Weld County. The applicant has had a pre - application meeting with Weld County and understands this access location has to be approved by Weld County if the applicant submits a Use by Special Review permit application to Weld County. The applicant may also annex into the City of Fort Lupton and if this occurs the traffic and access issues will be reviewed by the City of Fort Lupton. The applicant is determining if they will submit their application to Weld County or if they will annex to the City of Fort Lupton and submit their application to Fort Lupton. The applicant has conducted a traffic study for the intersection and will provide the study to Weld County or Fort Lupton for review when those applications can be turned in. 2. The number of gravel trucks currently using this intersection is absurd. Large trucks are not able to stay within their own traffic lane while turning at this intersection which backs up traffic waiting for trucks to turn. Traffic in every direction is affected by this. Often these trucks travel at high speeds with little regard for members of the community, their pets, and wildlife who live in this area. Numerous animals have been hit and killed at this intersection. Those of us who love to ride our bikes are fearful to do so. A bicyclist lost V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Veronica Cantrell and Marcelo Ferreira 5/15/17 -5- his life this past year to one of these trucks just down the road from the gravel pitting operation at CR 18 and 25. Response: The number of gravel trucks that were documented in the traffic study by the traffic counters was 20 trucks on CR 23 for the entire day and 18 trucks on CR 24 for the entire day. We understand that this count likely went down because Weld County has finished mining the Koenig pit. The applicant will be working with Weld County and/or the City of Fort Lupton to review the current and future traffic at the intersection. The majority of anticipated traffic from this proposed operation will go south on CR 23 or west on CR 24. The current speed limit on CR 23 is 55 mph. This can also be evaluated with Weld County and/or the City of Fort Lupton to see if a speed reduction could be put in place to slow traffic down in this area. NCC will be requesting a speed reduction. The bicyclist traffic accident you are referring to occurred on CR 25 and the cyclist was riding down the center of the roadway and turned into and oncoming truck. 3. The impact on wildlife by this operation will be detrimental. There are many families of eagles, hawks, and herons that live along the river bottom and on my land in the trees right along the proposed road by which they intend to travel out of their property. Wildlife has very little space in which to live that is not impacted by the four current gravel pitting operations in this area. Response: A threatened and endangered species screening and was conducted by Ecological Resource Consultants (ERC) for the property proposed to be mined by NCC. ERC also conducted a delineation of aquatic resources (wetlands). ERC has submitted a pre -construction notification for the impacts to wetlands for the proposed access road. To date ERC has met with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) at the site to review the impacts. The Corps representatives concurred with ERC's assessment and impacts. ERC is waiting for a formal response from the Corps approving the Nationwide Permit for the proposed construction of the access road. 4. The proposed road is within feet from my home which will create direct health issues related to air pollution caused by exhaust and dust. Numerous trucks will be backed up next to my home waiting for long periods of time to get onto the intersection. Noise pollution will also negatively impact my family and all animals living here. Response: NCC met with Mr. Corky Cantrell (Ms. Veronica Cantrell's husband) on May 15, 2017 to discuss the comments that Ms. Cantrell and her son-in-law Mr. Ferreira had submitted to the DRMS. During the meeting with Mr. Cantrell construction of a berm near the entrance to CR 23 extending east to the Meadow Island Ditch was discussed and also planting trees (evergreen type) on top of the berm to help screen the access and attenuate noise. A fence was also discussed from the Meadow Island Ditch to the crossing of the existing slough to help keep Mr. Cantrell's dog run areas better separated from the property. NCC will have an approved Air Pollution Emission Notice permit (APEN) prior to operation of the proposed gravel mine. The APEN requires that dust must be V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Veronica Cantrell and Marcelo Ferreira 5/15/17 -5- controlled by graveling the access road and utilizing a water truck to spray water on the access road to mitigate and control dust. NCC requires that all equipment entering the property have functioning exhaust systems and mufflers as required by local, state, and federal laws. A traffic study has been performed for the proposed project and will be turned into Weld County or the City of Fort Lupton for review. The traffic study cannot be submitted to Weld County until there is approval from DRMS. The traffic study does indicate a Level of Service for the intersection with the future mine traffic of LOS B. This equates to a vehicle (truck or passenger vehicle) being able to enter the intersection (based on the future traffic with the mine traffic included) every 10 to 11 seconds. The traffic will not back up at the intersection where there are multiple vehicles waiting to enter the intersection. Allowable noise levels per the Weld County Code will be adhered to. The level of noise at a residence's property line is 55 decibels. Utilizing a screening berm and trees will help attenuate noise to ensure that the levels are not above what is allowed by Weld County. 5. Northern Colorado Constructors can exit this operation from the south of the property if they choose to do so. Response: The proposed access location is the best location because of site distance to oncoming traffic from both directions of traffic. The longer site distance allows for vehicles to access CR 23 safely. The access to the south is not as safe because of the short site distance to oncoming traffic. The existing roadway to the south is also a dirt road, where CR 23 is a paved roadway. Ms. Cantrell's comments were as follows on her second letter: 1. I would like to add one additional concern which your board absolutely needs to consider. Our property is located north of the proposed Bennett Pit. The eastern portion of our property is at the same elevation as the proposed pit. Because the existing water table is extremely high we are very concerned about the proposed slurry walls that will be needed to dry mine the pit. In the summer the water table has risen to within 18 inches of the surface of our grass field and corrals. With the groundwater mounding that will result from the slurry walls we are very concerned we will lose valuable ground to swamping issues. Response: We discussed the groundwater issues with Mr. Cantrell on May 15, 2017 and gave a copy of the groundwater model report and results to him to review. The area where the Cantrell property is located is within a potential shadow of the slurry wall per the ground water model results. NCC has installed monitor wells around the perimeter of the proposed slurry wall and gravel pit. The monitor wells have been measured weekly since April and will continue to be monitored prior to the installation of the slurry wall and also after the slurry wall is installed. If there is mounding or shadow effects from the slurry wall that are outside of the historic levels of the monitoring wells then a perimeter drain will be evaluated and designed to 0 ill 1J 1 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Veronica Cantrell and Marcelo Ferreira 5/15/17 -5- mitigate and keep the mounding and shadow effects within the normal fluctuation of the existing ground water levels. Ms. Cantrell's and Mr. Ferreira's comments were as follows on her third letter: 1. Our entire home is supported directly by well water, and we are concerned about the water quality being adversely impacted by this gravel mining pit. We would ask that water quality testing be mandated by the Board and the State of Colorado to protect our health and well-being should this mining operation be approved. We request that the water be tested regularly to ensure no outstanding water quality issues are created but not immediately recognized in the future. Response: We discussed the groundwater issues with Mr. Cantrell on May 15, 2017. NCC would like to monitor the well. 2. The aquifer on our property will be potentially raised due to the type of gravel pit mine that is proposed, and could flood our entire lower field, making farming impossible. This field provides feed for our livestock, and would have an adverse impact on our family. Response: We discussed the groundwater issues with Mr. Cantrell on May 15, 2017 and gave a copy of the groundwater model report and results to him to review. The area where the Cantrell property is located is within a potential shadow of the slurry wall per the ground water model results. NCC has installed monitor wells around the perimeter of the proposed slurry wall and gravel pit. The monitor wells have been measured weekly since April and will continue to be monitored prior to the installation of the slurry wall and also after the slurry wall is installed. If there is mounding or shadow effects from the slurry wall that are outside of the historic levels of the monitoring wells then a perimeter drain will be evaluated and designed to mitigate and keep the mounding and shadow effects within the normal fluctuation of the existing ground water levels. 3. The increased truck traffic would significantly impact an already overly busy and overcrowded county road. Daily, hundreds of gravel trucks travel on these small country roads, consistently exceeding the speed limit and a safe driving limit; and causing traffic congestion and turning issues at our intersection. We request a traffic study be completed by the County to determine the impacts of additional truck traffic turning onto this busy road, and how that will impact traffic patterns and flow. Trucks treat this area as a place of work, with no regard for those who call this area our home. We request that significant thought be placed onto the impacts this mining pit will have on traffic and congestion. Response: The proposed operation does plan to access at this point, however the applicant cannot submit to Weld County until an approval from DRMS is obtained for a use by special review permit from Weld County. The applicant has had a pre - application meeting with Weld County and understands this access location has to be approved by Weld County if the applicant submits a Use by Special Review permit application to Weld County. The applicant may also annex into the City of Fort Lupton and if this occurs the traffic and access issues will be reviewed by the City of Fort Lupton. The applicant is determining if they will submit their application to Weld County or if they will annex to the City of Fort Lupton and submit their application to Fort Lupton. The applicant has conducted a traffic study for the intersection and will q ll 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit - File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Veronica Cantrell and Marcelo Ferreira 5/15/17 -5- provide the study to Weld County or Fort Lupton for review when those applications can be turned in. The number of gravel trucks that were documented in the traffic study by the traffic counters was 20 trucks on CR 23 for the entire day and 18 trucks on CR 24 for the entire day. We understand that this count likely went down because Weld County has finished mining the Koenig pit. The applicant will be working with Weld County and/or the City of Fort Lupton to review the current and future traffic at the intersection. The majority of anticipated traffic from this proposed operation will go south on CR 23 or west on CR 24. The current speed limit on CR 23 is 55 mph. This can also be evaluated with Weld County and/or the City of Fort Lupton to see if a speed reduction could be put in place to slow traffic down in this area. NCC will be requesting a speed reduction. 4. The proposal is now to create a driveway that will travel directly past my home and through wildlife habitat. There are thousands of birds that migrate through our property annually. They have traveled this pattern for the entire 27 years we have lived on this property. The environmental impacts this gravel mining pit will have on this land will be traumatic long into the future. Careful consideration in the layout of the gravel mining pit in order to minimize disruption to the migratory birds and wetland wildlife habitat in the area must be considered. Response: A threatened and endangered species screening and was conducted by Ecological Resource Consultants (ERC) for the property proposed to be mined by NCC. ERC also conducted a delineation of aquatic resources (wetlands). ERC has submitted a pre -construction notification for the impacts to wetlands for the proposed access road. To date ERC has met with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) at the site to review the impacts. The Corps representatives concurred with ERC's assessment and impacts. ERC is waiting for a formal response from the Corps approving the Nationwide Permit for the proposed construction of the access road. Thank you for your consideration of our responses to the comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if you need additional information. Sincerely, J.C. York, P.E. J&T Consulting, Inc. `i 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 May 15, 2017 Mr. Peter Hays Environmental Protection Specialist State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, & Safety 1313 Sherman Street — Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes- Windell and Bradley T. Windell Dear Mr. Hays, Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. has received the Division's adequacy review comments letter dated April 5, 2017. Below is the response to the comments received from Ms. Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Mr. Bradley T. Windell. Ms. Hynes-Windell and Mr. Windell comments were as follows: 1. Objection to Asphalt/Concrete Batch Plant Area: For 25 years these land owner have lived peacefully in this rural agricultural area enjoying vegetable farming, animal husbandry, wildlife and fresh air. The applicants proposed location of its Asphalt/ Concrete Batch Plant Area is objectionable and unacceptable to these adjacent property owners sharing a quarter of a mile property line. Response: The Asphalt/Concrete batch plant area is no longer being considered at the proposed Bennett Pit by NCC as they have another location that works better for their operations. 2. Impact to Domestic and Farm Well -Objection: A. Background Information: For 25 years this land owners domestic /farm well has produced adequate and reliable water. The domestic /farm well is an alluvial ground water well with a depth of less than 30 feet. This land owners domestic/farm well is less than 200 feet from the proposed mine slurry wall and a proposed Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plant Area. B. The alluvial ground water and domestic/farm well may be significantly compromised by the applicants proposed slurry wall. C. Principally the impact to the alluvial ground water domestic/farm wells adequate and reliable water production and water quality is; i. the slurry wall will cause interference with the immediately adjacent ground water, ii. the slurry wall will cause interference with the immediate ground water ill 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -2- flow path, iii. the slurry wall will cause interference with the ground waters hydraulic conductivity, iv. the slurry wall will cause interference with sub surface earth materials (fine grained sediments) In close proximity of the well and may cause consolidation of grained sediments and poor hydraulic conductivity, v. the slurry wall will cause interference with the hydraulic head of the well over time, vi. additionally, the ground water flow hydraulic will be interrupted over time given the slurry walls southwest corner is in close proximity to these landowners well, vii. The influence caused by the slurry walls location to the well will create a cone of depression developed over time and a loss of water production will occur. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May eh - May 12th but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. The area where the Windell property/well is located is within a potential mounding area of the slurry wall per the ground water model results. NCC has installed monitor wells around the perimeter of the proposed slurry wall and gravel pit. The monitor wells have been measured weekly since April and will continue to be monitored prior to the installation of the slurry wall and also after the slurry wall is installed. If there is mounding or shadow effects from the slurry wall that are outside of the historic levels of the monitoring wells then a perimeter drain will be evaluated and designed to mitigate and keep the mounding and shadow effects within the normal fluctuation of the existing ground water levels. NCC would also like to monitor Mr. Windell's well so that it can be determined how/if the water levels are fluctuating. A structure owner agreement has also been provided to Mr. Windell however no response back to NCC has been provided at this time. 3. Objection to Applicants "Fugitive Dust" "Fugitive Particulate Emissions" Acerbated by North by Northwest Prevailing Winds: A. Background Information. The proposed mine is less than two hundred feet from the Windell's whom have owned their farm for 25 years. The applicants proposed aggregate mining activities will generate exceptionally high dust exposure creating a health risk for these adjacent land owners over time. Of Greatest Concern: specifically, is exposure to high levels of dust, silica dust (sand and gravel dust) is hazardous when very small (respirable) particles are inhaled. These respirable dust particles can penetrate deep into the lungs of humans causing disabling and sometimes fatal lung diseases, including lung cancer, silicosis, and kidney disease. B. Currently, the mines in the area are 90% exposed surfaces, fine grain sands, aggregate surfaces, over burden piles, sands and gravel and 10% weeds creating 4 " 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit - File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -3- an unnecessary erodible and unstable dusty daily surface condition . C. Mines in the region have mechanically exposed aggregate surface for years and decades generating intensely fierce fugitive dust storms. Exposed aggregate surfaces include; i. mine pit perimeter roads, and internal roads, ii. exposed 3:1 slopes, iii. over burden piles, iv. spoils piles, v. processing piles, vi. active mining face excavation, vii. heavy haul truck transporting within the mine, viii. gravel production stock piling and loading, ix. ingress and egress dusty conditions. D. The applicants Processing Plant Area is within 600 feet of these 25 year adjacent land owners and will generate exceptionally high and unacceptable dust level exposures, i. use of front end loaders, ii. transporting aggregates iii. ingress and egress loading of over the road haul trucks, more than a one and a half miles (11/2) mi.) from the entrance of the mine in a north by northwest direction will cause harmful and dangerous leaves of dust. iv. harmful dust levels are expected from the applicant's circulation pattern around the processing plant. v. harmful dust levels are expected from the applicant's methods of mining that utilizes haul trucks and lacks conveyor systems moving pit run closer to the entrance for processing. E. Acerbating dust throughout the mine area are the prevailing winds. Winds and breezes occur daily as warm and cold air travels up and down the South Platte River. F. Moderate to high winds prevail from the north and northwest and given the location of the processing plant and many acres of exposed aggregate a dangerously unhealthy living condition is created for the adjacent landowners. G. Given the mine is being developed 600 feet northwest of this property owner and north by northwest winds occur often, the exposure and health risk is unacceptable. H. Finally, if the completed mine pit is to be used for water storage, once water releases occur and the reservoir is dry, highly dusty conditions will continue to occur. Regionally, the mining activity and these many hundreds of acres of exposed sand and gravel create harmful and fierce dust storms. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May 8th - May 12`h but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -4- Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. NCC has applied for an Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) permit for the proposed Bennett Pit. NCC will gravel the access and haul roads to help mitigate dust as well as using a water truck to spray water on the haul road and access road surfaces for dust control as required by Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE). Topsoil and Overburden piles will be seeded once the piles are placed and not active to mitigate dust and erosion, a water truck will be used to mitigate dust during the time the piles are actively being placed. Raw materials are to be processed through a wash plant where the fines are washed from the rock and sand products. Stock piles will be sprinkled as needed to mitigate dust. NCC will meet the requirements of the approved APEN from CDPHE for fugitive dust. NCC will mine and remove overburden and topsoil with scrapers, haul trucks, and excavators; very similar to how overburden and topsoil are currently being removed at the Lupton Meadows Gravel Mine M-2016-076 which Mr. Windell is a partial owner of the property. Bestway is currently removing topsoil and overburden and also utilizing a water truck to mitigate dust on the haul routes. According to Bestway's mining plan they will use haul trucks and conveyors to transport raw materials to their processing plant. NCC will utilize haul trucks and conveyors to transport the raw materials to the processing facility as per their proposed mining methods. The reclaimed reservoir will be utilized by the property owner for water storage and recreation so the reservoir is not anticipated to be dry. NCC would like to discuss the potential berm Mr. Windell talks about in his letter for his necessary mitigation. There are some issues with the location and limitations on berm heights due to existing power lines in the area and the existing floodplain. 4. Visual Impacts Objections: A. Background Information: For 25 years the Windell's have enjoyed agricultural activities entering and exits their home to the north and having seven large windows that face north. Given the elevation of this land owners property (approx.. 14' above the mine) the visual impacts are unacceptable. B. The applicant has located both the processing plant area and the asphalt/concrete batch plant area in the south cell next to this adjacent land owner's residence and farm is unacceptable C. The processing plant area and the asphalt/concrete batch plant are unnecessarily dislocated from the ingress and egress and the central mining area visually creating an eye sore and unhealthy fugitive particle emission on this adjacent land owner. D. These adjacent land owners observe no thought on behalf of the applicant to screen their aggregate mining operation and find this objectionable. E. The applicant must be required to identify another area for its processing plant area further to the north of these land owners V . 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -5- F. The applicant as a condition of the permit should be denied an asphalt/concrete batch plant G. The applicants permit should be withheld until an adequate resolution to this matter is achieved by the applicant and an agreement recorded with this land owner. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May 8th — May 12t but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. The Asphalt/Concrete batch plant area is no longer being considered at the proposed Bennett Pit by NCC as they have another location that works better for their operations. The processing plant is located in an area such that mining can occur and processing can occur efficiently as well as not having to relocate the processing plant to mine areas underneath the processing plant location. NCC has submitted a weed management plan specific to the proposed Bennett Pit area to the DRMS for review. The weed management plan was developed in concert with Ms. Tina Booton (Weld County Public Works Weed Division Supervisor). NCC would like to discuss the potential berm and plantings Mr. Windell talks about in his letter for his necessary mitigation. There are some issues with the location and limitations on berm heights due to existing power lines in the area and the existing floodplain. 5. Objection to Noise Impacts: A. Background: For 25 years we have heard and listening to sounds of wildlife such as geese, eagles, turkeys, pheasants, hawks, coyotes and many species of birds. The applicants proposed mine like others in the region will be noisy. Backup warning signals can be heard locally for 12 hours a day. The impact of the noisy mining enterprise adjacent to the Windell's is objectionable and unacceptable. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May el - May 12m but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. The backup alarms for the mining equipment are required per MSHA regulations, not OSHA regulations. See MSHA Regulation 30 CFR 77.410 Mobile equipment; automatic warning devices (a) Mobile equipment such as front-end loaders, forklifts, tractors, graders, and trucks, except pickup trucks with an unobstructed rear view, shall be equipped with a warning device V 305 Denver Avenue - Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -6- NCC currently has warning devices that are audible alarms per their safety guidelines to comply with MSHA. The audible alarm has to be audible above the surrounding sound levels to comply with MSHA. The sounds of animals like birds and frogs does not meet this level and also is not common among mining equipment. The mining is proposed to occur from north to south so the mining will be lower than the elevation of the Windell property that is elevated 14 feet above the mine. The mining 3:1 slope will help attenuate sounds from the mining area and the distance from the Windell property buildings will also help attenuate the noise. The processing area outside limit is approximately 500 feet north of the Windell property. The product stockpiles will surround the processing plant and will also help attenuate noise from the plant itself and noise from the loaders running and backing up. The distance from the area to the Windell property will also help attenuate noise from the area. NCC would like to discuss the potential berm and plantings Mr. Windell talks about in his letter for his necessary mitigation. There are some issues with the location and limitations on berm heights due to existing power lines in the area and the existing floodplain. 6. Objections to weed control and proposed reclamation impacts: A. Background: Sand and gravel mining reclamation contemplated by the applicant is weak on substance and timing. Each gravel mine in the area is cover cropped with weeds for years and decades. Typically, the weeds are not controlled by the operating mine. Most mines in the region utilize a dozer, maintainer or loader to perform weed control by leveling and pulverizing the weeds within the mine perimeter, spoil pile or overburden pile. This method assures an annual weedy cover crop exposed aggregates and a weedy seed distribution in close proximity of the mine. The prevailing winds will cause dispersion of the weed seed and without an improved application interrupts this land owner and their 25 years of farming. The applicant proposes a boiler plate application response, top soiling and seeding at an exceedingly low rate when the mine is complete and demonstrates a carelessness that requires revision. The applicant must as a condition of the permit before mining starts develop a smart track reclamation plan with specific dates, specifications and standards and fewer generalities. Given the reclamation of the applicants mine is exceedingly important to health, wellness and safety of these adjacent landowners, further review, requirements and restrictions and protections are required by the Windell's land owners downwind from the pit. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May 8"' - May 12`h but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10m; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. NCC has submitted a weed management plan specific to the proposed Bennett Pit area to the DRMS for review. The weed management plan was developed in concert with Ms. Tina Booton (Weld County Public Works Weed Division Supervisor). V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. - Bennett Pit - File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -7- NCC has submitted a temporary and permanent reclamation grass seed mix specific to the proposed Bennett Pit area to the DRMS for review. The seed mixes were developed in concert with Ms. Tiffani Walker (NRCS - USDA Soil Conservationist). NCC would like to discuss the potential berm and plantings Mr. Windell talks about in his letter for his necessary mitigation. There are some issues with the location and limitations on berm heights due to existing power lines in the area and the existing floodplain. 7. Night Lighting of the Mine Objection: A. Background: Lighting in the mine is a concern given there has been no lights in the area for 25 years. We ask that the processing plants area plant night lights be contained within a walled installation blocking night lights. B. A walled containment system is required and should be required for approval of the permit. The night lighting is another visual impact that a walled containment system eliminates. Walled containment suppresses the mines processing noise impacts and fugitive dust impacts and causes better emissions control. Typically these walls range in height from 16 to 32 feet and can be installed an all four sides of a mining processing plant area as support equipment. The height length and layout of the walls are designed to contain light, sound, dust at the processing plant area. The ENC's STC-25 modular acoustical and fugitive dust particulate confinement wall panel system is specially designed to effectively block lights, related noise, and fugitive particulate propagating into surrounding environment. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May 8th - May 12th but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. The wall panels Mr. Windell refers to are for oil/gas drilling to attenuate light and noise since they drill 24 hours per day seven days a week. The noises from drilling are also higher levels than that of the mining equipment and processing plant so the wall panels are needed to get noise levels down to Weld County's regulated levels of 55 decibels to residence property lines adjacent to these drilling operations. These wall panels are also not included as a part of the Lupton Meadows Gravel Mine M- 2016-076 processing facility which Mr. Windell is a partial owner of the property. Any lighting at the mine site will be down cast so that the lighted area does not cast anywhere outside the property limits. Weld County or the City of Fort Lupton will require all lighting be down cast. Existing lighting is already on the Bennett Pit property at the location of the existing residence north of the Windell property. The existing residence will be outside the mining limits of the Bennett Pit. The processing area outside limit is approximately 500 feet north of the Windell property. The product stockpiles will surround the processing plant and will also help attenuate noise from the plant itself and noise from the loaders running and backing up. The distance from the area to the Windell property will also help attenuate noise V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -8- from the area. NCC will meet the Weld County regulated level of 55 decibels at the Windell property line. NCC would like to discuss the potential berm and plantings Mr. Windell talks about in his letter for his necessary mitigation. There are some issues with the location and limitations on berm heights due to existing power lines in the area and the existing floodplain. 8. Hours of Operation Objection: A. Background: This mine site is directly north of this property owner's property line and shares 1,470 feet is a peaceful rural area along the South Platte. Allowing a mining operation to develop next to property the Windell's have owned for 25 years is unacceptable. The interruption of the Windell's lifestyle is unwanted and unconsidered by the applicant. The hours of operation proposed by the Applicant are objectionable and unacceptable. B. The applicants proposed mine work hour as a condition of the permit must be M -F 9:30 to 2:30 pm. The mine should be closed Saturday and Sunday. Special hours of operation should also be denied by the Division. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in getting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May 8th - May 12th but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. The mine operation hours are regulated by the land use permit application that will be through Weld County or the City of Fort Lupton. Mining hours are generally from dawn to dusk. The hours when trucks are loading and hauling out product is generally from 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM however mining continues after these hours to finish processing raw materials for the day and then there are shutdown sequences that occur for the processing equipment, loaders, haul trucks, and conveyor systems. Maintenance of the equipment occurs once the equipment is shutdown so any repairs can be made as well as re -fueling and lubricating. The Lupton Meadows Gravel Mine M-2016-076 processing facility which Mr. Windell is a partial owner of the property that is just south of this location on CR 25 has hours of operation from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM (dawn to dusk). 9. Truck Egress and Ingress Impact and Objection: A. Background: Truck egress should be stipulated and required on Weld County Road 23 only. B. Ingress and Egress from Weld County Road 22.5 should not be permitted. Currently the NCCI team enters the processing plant area from Weld County Road 22.5. All future ingress and egress by mining personnel must be prevented and stipulated as a condition of the applicants permit. Response: NCC has tried to schedule meetings with Mr. Windell and has been unsuccessful in setting a time to meet. Several times were proposed for the week of May 8th - May 12t but those times did not work for Mr. Windell's schedule. NCC asked V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 RE: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. — Bennett Pit — File No. M-2016-085 112c Permit Application, Adequacy Review Comments Response to Heidi G. Hynes-Windell and Bradley T. Windell 5/15/17 -9- Mr. Windell for some dates and times that could potentially work to meet with him on via e-mail May 10th; and no response has been provided by Mr. Windell indicating any dates or times to meet and discuss their comments at this time. The access will be regulated by the land use permit application that will be through Weld County or the City of Fort Lupton. The proposed access for the mining special use permit and the DRMS permit will be on CR 23. The access to the property on the south east corner will remain for the property owner who maintains a residence on the north east corner of the property near the South Platte River. The access on the southwest corner of the property will remain for the oil/gas access to their existing facilities as it is currently used. The existing accesses will be in use for the time being until the proposed access is permitted and approved by Weld County or the City of Fort Lupton. Thank you for your consideration of our responses to the comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if you need additional information. Sincerely, J.C. York, P.E. J&T Consulting, Inc. V 305 Denver Avenue — Suite D • Fort Lupton CO 80621 • Ph: 303-857-6222 • Fax: 303-857-6224 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., Ste 821, DENVER CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 dwroer®mine@state co us MONITORING/OBSERVATION Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be typed, completed online or in black or blue ink. 1. Well Owner Information Name at well owner Office Use Only Form GINS -46 (11/2011) Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc 6. Use Of Well Mailing address 9075 WCR 10 Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling 7. Well Data (proposed) Total depth City Fort Lupton State CO Zip code 80621 40 feet Aquifer South Platte Alluvial Telephone # (303)-857-1754 E -Mail (If filing online it is required) 8. Consultant Information (if applicable) 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) Name of contact person J.C. York ❑ Use existing well 1 Construct new well ❑ Other: ❑ Replacement for existing monitoring well: Permit no : Company name J&T Consulting, Inc. 3. Refer To (if applicable) Monitoring hole acknowledgment Mailing address 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D MH- 56624 Well name or # B H-11 City Fort Lupton Stale CO Zip Code 80621 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) County Weld SW 1/4oflhe SE 1/4 Telephone # (303)-857-6222 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): 10. Name of Well Owner or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. Sign or enter full name here Section 1 Township 2 NorS Range 67 EorW 1- Fe Principal Meridian 6 Distance of well from section lines (section lines are typically not property I nes) 891 Ft fromf— N f>< S 3933 Ft from r E l w For replacement wells only — distance and direction from old well to new well feet direction Well location address (Include City, State, Zip) O Check if well address is same as Item 1 20199 SW4SE4 1-2-67 Date (mmlddfyyyy) tit2:-II+ If signing pnnt name Print titre if other than land owner Or - Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows: Office Use Only Format must be UTM r Zone 12 or r Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NAD83 Unit must be set to true north Was GPS unit checked for above? ❑ YES Easting Northing Remember to set Datum to NAD83 USGS map name DWR map no Surface elev 5. Property Owner Information Name of property owner Pioneer Land Company, LLC Mailing address 4409 Coriolis Way Receipt area only City Frederick State CO Zip Code 80504 Telephone it DIV WD BA MD COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., Ste 821, DENVER CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 dwrpermitsonlineAstate co us MONITORING/OBSERVATION Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be typed, completed online or in black or blue ink. 1. Well Owner Information Name or well owner Office Use Only Form GWS-46 (11/2011) Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc 6. Use Of Well Mailing address 9075 WCR 10 Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling 7. Well Data (proposed) Total depth City Fort Lupton State CO Zip code 80621 45 feet Aquifer South Platte Alluvial Telephone (303)-857-1754 E -Mail (If filing online it is required) 8. Consultant Information (if applicable) 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) Name of contact person J.C. York D Use existing well II Construct new well ❑ Other: ❑ Replacement for existing monitoring well: Permit no.: Company name J&T Consulting, Inc. 3. Refer To (if applicable) Monitoring hole acknowledgment Mailing address 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D MH- 56624 Well name or fl BH-23 City Fort Lupton State CO Zip Code 80621 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) County Weld SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Telephone A (303)-857-6222 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): 10. Name of Well Owner or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. Sign or enter full name here Section 1 Township 2 N or S r - Range 67 Eorw r —r Principal Mendian 6 Distance of well from section lines section lines are typically not property lines) 852 Ft fromf N rX S 2683 Ft from I- E l W For replacement wells only — distance and direction from old well to new well feet direction Date (mm/dd ,yyy) Well location address (Include City, Stale, Zip) O Check if well address is same as Item 1 20199 SW4SE4 1-2-67 If arguing print name Print than land owner Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows: Office Use Only Format must be UTM r— Zone 12 or r- Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NAD83 Unit must be set to true north Was GPS unit checked for above ❑ YES Easting Northing Remember to set Datum to NAD83 USGS map name DWR map no Surface elev 5. Property Owner Information Name of property owner Pioneer Land Company, LLC Mailing address 4409 Coriolis Way Receipt area only City Frederick State CO Zip Code 80504 Telephone q DIV WD BA MD COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., Ste 821, DENVER CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 dwrpermitsonlineAstate co us MONITORING/OBSERVATION Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be typed, completed online or in black or blue ink. 1. Well Owner Information Name of well owner Office Use Only Form GWS-46 (11/2011) Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc 6. Use Of Well Mailing address 9075 WCR 10 Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling 7. Well Data (proposed) Total depth City Fort Lupton State CO Zip code 80621 45 feet Aquifer South Platte Alluvial Telephone # (303)-857-1754 E -Mail (If filing online it is required) 8. Consultant Information (if applicable) 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) Name of contact person J.C. York a Use existing well UI Construct new well ❑ Other: O Replacement for existing monitoring well: Permit no., Company name J&T Consulting, Inc. 3. Refer To (if applicable) Monilonng hole acknowledgment Mailing address 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D MH- 56625 Well name or # BH-14 City Fort Lupton State CO Zip Code 80621 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) County Weld NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 Telephone # (303)-857-6222 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): 10. Name of Well Owner or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. Sign or enter full name here Section 12 Township 2 N or S Range 67 EorW r I% Principal Meridian 6 Distance of well from section lines section lines are typically not property lines) 840 Ft fromR N I— S 3657 Ft from r E IX W For replacement wells only — distance and direction from old well to new well feet direction Date lmnudd/yyyyl 41211 l} Well location address (Include City, State. Zip) O Check if well address is same as Item 1 20199 SW4SE4 1-2-67 if signing print name Print L eint ti e if land owner Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows: Office Use Only Format must be UTM I—. Zone 12 or I— Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NAD83 Unit must be set to true north Was GPS unit checked for above? O YES Easting Northing Remember to set Datum to NAD83 USGS map name DWR map no Surface elev 5. Property Owner Information Name of property owner Pioneer Land Company, LLC Mailing address 4409 Coriolis Way Receipt area only City Frederick State CO Zip Code 80504 Telephone # DIV WO BA __ MD COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., Ste 821, DENVER CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 dwrpermitsonline(a)state co us MONITORING/OBSERVATION Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be typed, completed online or in black or blue ink. 1. Well Owner Information Name of well owner Office Use Only Form GVVS-46 (1112011) Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc 6. Use Of Well Mailing address 9075 WCR 10 Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling 7. Well Data (proposed) Total depth City Fort Lupton Stale CO Zip code 80621 35 feet Aquifer South Platte Alluvial Telephone # (303)-857-1754 E -Mail (If filing online it is required) 8. Consultant Information (if applicable) 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) Name of contact person J.C. York ❑ Use existing well II Construct new well ❑ Other: ❑ Replacement for existing monitoring well: Permit no : Company name J&T Consulting, Inc - 3. Refer To (if applicable) Monitonng hole acknowledgment Mailing address 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D MH- 56625 Well name or # BH-17 City Fort Lupton State CO Zip Code 80621 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) County Weld NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 Telephone # (303)-857-6222 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): 10. Name of Well Owner or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. Sign or enter full name here Section 12 Township 2 NorS r1 — Range 67 E or W r Pnnclpal Meridian 6 Distance of well from section lines (section lines are typically not property lines) 2560 Ft from/- N T S 2681 Ft from r E IX W For replacement wells only — distance and direction from old well to new well feet direction Date (mrn/dd/yyyy) 114 I 1R -- Well location address (Include City. State, Zip) O Check if well address is same as Item 1 20199 SW4SE4 1-2-67 it signing print name Print Otte Tt other titan land owner • S Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows: Office Use Only Format must be UTM E Zone 12 or I Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NADa3 Unit must be set to true north Was GPS unit checked for above? O YES Easting Northing Remember to set Datum to NAD83 USGS map name DWR map no Surface elev 5. Property Owner Information Name of property owner Pioneer Land Company, LLC Mailing address 4409 Coriolis Way Receipt area only City Frederick State CO Zip Code 80504 Telephone # DIV WD BA MD COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., Ste 821, DENVER CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3581 dwrpermitsonline(@state co us MONITORING/OBSERVATION Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be typed, completed online or in black or blue ink. 1. Well Owner Information Office Use Only Form GUNS -46 (11/2011) Name of well owner Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc 6. Use Of Well Mailing address 9075 WCR 10 Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling 7. Well Data (proposed) Total depth City Fort Lupton State CO Zip code 80621 30 feet Aquifer South Platte Alluvial Telephone # (303)-857-1754 E -Mail ilf filing online it is required) 8. Consultant Information (if applicable) 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) Name of contact person J.C. York ❑ Use existing well ® Construct new well El Other: ❑ Replacement for existing monitoring well: Permit no.: Company name J&T Consulting, Inc. 3. Refer To (if applicable) Monitoring hole acknowledgment Mailing address 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D MH- 56625 Well name or# BH-19 City Fort Lupton State CO Zip Code 80621 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) County Weld NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 Telephone # (303)-857-6222 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): 10. Name of Well Owner or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. Sign or enter full name here Section 12 Township 2 NorS Range 67 E or W I -l. Principal Meridian 6 Distance of well from section lines (section lines are typically not property lines) 1047 Ft from N f s 1910 Ft from E E rX W For replacement wells only — distance and direction from old well to new well feet direction Well location address (Include City, State, Zip) ❑ Check if well address is same as Item 1 20199 SW4SE4 1-2-67 oA If signing print name Print YUe r other than lend owner Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows. Office Use Only Format must be UTM r Zone 12 or r Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NAD83 Unit must be set to true north Was GPS unit checked for above? ❑ YES Easting Northing Remember to set Datum to NAD83 USGS map name DWR map no Surface elev 5. Property Owner Information Name of properly owner Pioneer Land Company, LLC Mailing address 4409 Coriolis Way Receipt area only City Frederick State CO Zip Code 80504 Telephone # DIV WD BA MD Form No. GWS 31 02/2017 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND YIELD ESTIMATE REPORT State of Colorado, Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman St., Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us and dwrpermitsontine@state.co.us For Office Use Only 1. Well Permit Number: 56624-MH - Receipt Number: 0056624 2. Owner's Welt Designation: BH-11 3. Well Owner Name: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. 4. Well Location Street Address: 5. As Built GPS Well Location (required): ❑Zone 12 D Zone 13 Easting: Northing: 6. Legal Well Location: SW 1/4, SE 1/4, Sec., 1 Twp. 2 1p N or S J•, Range 67 t• E or W p, 6 P.M. County: Weld Subdivision: Lot Block Filing (Unit) , , , 7. Ground Surface Elevation: 4834.2 feet Date Completed: 04/15/2017 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 8. Completed Aquifer Name : South Platte Alluvial Total Depth: 38.3 feet Depth Completed: 38.3 feet 9. Advance Notification: Was Notification Required Prior to Construction? ■ Yes No, Date Notification Given: 10. Aquifer Type: (Check one) ■ ■ Type I (One Confining Layer) Type I (Multiple Confining Layers) Type II (Not overlain by Type III) []Type II (Overlain by Type III) m D Laramie -Fox Hills Type III (alluvial/colluvial) 11. Geologic Log: 12. Hole Diameter (in.) From (ft) To (ft) 6 0 38.3 Depth Type Grain Size Color Water Loc. 0-2 Sandy Silt fine, clay brown 2-31.5 Coarse Alluvium SM-GM 4.5 31.5-34.5 Weather Bedrock Lignite black 13. Plain Casing OD (in) Kind Wall Size (in) From (ft) To (ft) 2 PVC 0.154 0 11 34.5-38.3 Bedrock fine,very fine Perforated Casing Screen Slot Size (in): 0.01 OD (in) Kind Wall Size (in) From (ft) To (ft) 2 PVC 0.154 11 38.3 14. Filter Pack: Material 10-20 Silica 15. Packer Placement: Type N/A Depth Size #50 Interval 13-38 16. Grouting Record Material Amount Density Interval Method Remarks: 17. Disinfection: Type N/A Amt. Used 18. Well Yield Estimate Data: Well Yield Estimate Method: III heck box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number GWS-39, Well Yield Test Report Static Level: 4.5 Estimated Yield (gpm) Estimate Length (hrs) Date/Time measured: 4/15/17 Remarks: 19. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed (or name entered if filing online) and certified in accordance with Rule 17.4 of the Water Well Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402 2. The filing of a document that contains false statements is a violation of section 37 91 108(1)(e), C.R.S., and is punishable by fines up to $1,000 and/or revocation of the contracting license. If filing online the State Engineer considers the entry of the licensed contractor's name to be compliance with Rule 17.4. Company Name: Elite Drilling Services Email: cljecminek@elitedrillingservices.com Phone w/area code: (303) 748-1090 License Number: Mailing Address: 3978 Ulster Street Denver, CO 80207 Sign orenter ame if fi~ g onl' / �.__ Print Name and Title Charles Jecminek Managing Partner Date: 05/03/2017 Form No. GWS-31 02/2017 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND YIELD ESTIMATE REPORT State of Colorado, Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman St., Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us and dwroermitsonline@state.co.us For Office Use Only 1. Well Permit Number: 56624 -MN - Receipt Number: 0056624 2. Owner's Well Designation: BH-23 3. Well Owner Name: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. 4. Well Location Street Address: 5. As Built GPS Well Location (required): ■ Zone 12 a Zone 13 Fasting: Northing: 6. Legal Well Location: SW 1/4, SE 1/4, Sec., 1 Twp. 2 p N or S MI, Range 67 E or W p, 6 P.M. County: Weld Subdivision: Lot Block Filing (Unit) , , , 7. Ground Surface Elevation: 4833.1 feet Date Completed: 04/15/2017 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 8. Completed Aquifer Name : South Platte Alluvial Total Depth: 45.5 feet Depth Completed: 45.5 feet 9. Advance Notification: Was Notification Required Prior to Construction? 0 Yes ■ No, Date Notification Given: 10. Aquifer Type: (Check one) ■ Type I (One Confining Layer) Type I (Multiple Confining Layers) Type II (Not overlain by Type III) ©Type II (Overlain by Type III) ■ °Type Laramie -Fox Hills III (alluvial/colluvial) 11. Geologic Log: 12. Hole Diameter (in.) 6 From (ft) To (ft) 0 45.5 Depth Type Grain Size Color Water Loc. 0-4 Silty Clay clay, fine dr brown 4-34 Coarse Alluvium SM-GM 4.1 34-40 Weathered Bedr v fine/fine tan, and gry 13. Plain Casing OD (in) Kind Wall Size 2 PVC 0.154 (in) From (ft) To (ft) 0 12 Perforated Casing Screen Slot Size (in): 0.01 OD (in) Kind Watt 2 PVC 0.154 Size (in) From (ft) To (ft) 12 45.5 14. Filter Pack: Material 10-20 Silica 15. Packer Placement: Type Depth Size #50 Interval 15-45.5 16. Grouting Record Material Amount Density Interval Method Remarks: 17. Disinfection: Type N/A Amt. Used 18. Well Yield Estimate Data: ['Check box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number GWS-39, Well Yield Test Report Well Yield Estimate Method: Static Level: 4.1 Estimated Yield (gpm) Estimate Length (hrs) Date/Time measured: 4/15/17 Remarks: 19. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed (or name entered if filing online) and certified in accordance with Rule 17.4 of the Water Well Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402 2. The filing of a document that contains false statements is a violation of section 37 91 108(1)(e), C.R.S., and is punishable by fines up to $1,000 and/or revocation of the contracting license. If filing online the State Engineer considers the entry of the licensed contractor's name to be compliance with Rule 17.4. Company Name: Elite Drilling Services Email: cljecminek®elitedrillingservices.com Phone w/area code: (303) 748-1090 License Number: Mailing Address: 3978 Ulster Street Denver, CO 80207 Sign (or enter name i filin online) ' Print Name and Title Charles Jecminek Managing Partner Date: 05/03/2017 Form No. GWS 31 02/2017 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND YIELD ESTIMATE REPORT State of Colorado, Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman St., Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us and dwrpermitsonline@state.co.us For Office Use Only 1. Well Permit Number: 56625-MH - Receipt Number: 0056625 2. Owner's Well Designation: BH-14 3. Well Owner Name: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. 4. Well Location Street Address: 5. As Built GPS Well Location (required): ■ Zone 12 ip Zone 13 Easting: Northing: 6. Legal Well Location: NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec., 12 Twp. 2 En N or S a Range 67 III E or W I:3, 6 P.M. County: Weld Subdivision: Lot Block Filing (Unit) , , , 7. Ground Surface Elevation: 4837.0 feet Date Completed: 04/14/2017 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger _ 8. Completed Aquifer Name : South Platte Alluvial Total Depth: 42.6 feet Depth Completed: 42.6 feet 9. Advance Notification: Was Notification Required Prior to Construction? I Yes I No, Date Notification Given: 10. Aquifer Type: (Check one) a ❑Type Type I (One Confining Layer) DType I (Multiple Confining Layers) II (Not overlain by Type III) Drype II (Overlain by Type III) n Laramie -Fox Hills Type III (alluvial/colluvial) 11. Geologic Log: 12. Hole Diameter (in.) 6 From (ft) To (ft) 0 42.6 Depth Type Grain Size Color Water Loc. 0-2 Fine Alluvium clay, crs sand dr brown 2-38 Coarse Alluvium SM-GM 4.9 38-40 Claystone very fine dk grey 13. Plain Casing OD (in) Kind Wall Size 2 PVC 0.154 (in) From (ft) To (ft) 0 10 40-42.6 Bedrock very fine It to dk grey Perforated Casing Screen Slot Size (in): 0.01 OD (in) Kind Wall Size 2 PVC 0.154 (in) From (ft) To (ft) 10 42.6 14. Filter Pack: Material 10-20 Silica 15. Packer Placement: Type N/A Depth Size #50 Interval 12-42.6 16. Grouting Record Material Amount Density Interval Method Remarks: 17. Disinfection: Type N/A Amt. Used 18. Well Yield Estimate Data: QCheck box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number GWS-39, Well Yield Test Report Well Yield Estimate Method: Static Level: 4.2 Estimated Yield (gpm) Estimate Length (hrs) Date/Time measured: 4/14/17 Remarks: 19. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed (or name entered if filing online) and certified in accordance with Rule 17.4 of the Water Well Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402 2. The filing of a document that contains false statements is a violation of section 37 91 108(1)(e), C.R.S., and is punishable by fines up to $1,000 and/or revocation of the contracting license. If filing online the State Engineer considers the entry of the licensed contractor's name to be compliance with Rule 17.4. Company Name: Elite Drilling Services Email: cljecminek®elitedrillingservices.com Phone w/area code: (303) 748-1090 License Number: Mailing Address: 3978 Ulster Street Denver, CO 80207 Sign (or enter name if filing online) '7 Print Name and Title Charles Jecminek Managing Partner Date: 05/03/2017 -f -1.4'.4e /l44,4,i 2 Form No. GWS-31 02/2017 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND YIELD ESTIMATE REPORT State of Colorado, Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman St., Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us and dwroermitsonline@state.co.us For Office Use Only 1. Well Permit Number: 56625-MH - Receipt Number: 0056625 2. Owner's Well Designation: BH-17 3. Well Owner Name: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. 4. Well Location Street Address: 5. As Built GPS Well Location (required); r Zone 12 d Zone 13 Easting: Northing: 6. Legal Well Location: NE 1/4, NW 1/4, Sec., 12 Twp. 2 r`"j N or S CJ, Range 67 l♦ E or W p, 6 P.M. County: Weld Subdivision: Lot Block Filing (Unit) , , , 7. Ground Surface Elevation: 4840.8 feet Date Completed: 04/14/2017 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 8. Completed Aquifer Name : South Platte Alluvial Total Depth: 35.5 feet Depth Completed: 35.5 feet 9. Advance Notification: Was Notification Required Prior to Construction? ■ Yes Q No, Date Notification Given: 10. Aquifer Type: ElType I (One Confining Layer) [jType I (Multiple Confining Layers) (Check one) OType II (Not overlain by Type III) OType II (Overlain by Type III) ■ U Laramie -Fox Hills Type III (alluvial/colluvial) 11. Geologic Log: 12. Hole Diameter (in.) 6 From (ft) To (ft) 0 35.5 Depth Type Grain Size Color Water Loc. 0-5 Fine Alluvium CL -ML, cr san brn - dr brn 4.5 5-25.6 Sand fn/fn gravel brn/red-brn 25.6-26.4 Silty Sandstone v fine/fine It olive grey 13. Plain Casing OD (in) Kind Wall Size 2 PVC 0.154 (in) From (ft) To (ft) 0 10 26.4-35 Bedrck claystone very fine grey 35-35.5 Lignite black Perforated Casing Screen Slot Size (in): 0.01 OD (in) Kind Wall 2 PVC 0.154 Size (in) From (ft) To (ft) 10 35.5 14. Filter Pack: Material 10-20 Silica 15. Packer Placement: Type N/A Depth Size #50 Interval 15-35.5 16. Grouting Record Material Amount Density Interval Method Remarks: 17. Disinfection: Type N/A Amt. Used 18. Well Yield Estimate Data: ❑Check box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number GWS-39, Well Yield Test Report Well Yield Estimate Method: Static Level: 4.5 Estimated Yield (gpm) Estimate Length (hrs) Date/Time measured: 4/14/17 Remarks: 19. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed (or name entered if filing online) and certified in accordance with Rule 17.4 of the Water Well Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402 2. The filing of a document that contains false statements is a violation of section 37 91 108(1)(e), C.R.S., and is punishable by fines up to $1,000 and/or revocation of the contracting license. If filing online the State Engineer considers the entry of the licensed contractor's name to be compliance with Rule 17.4. Company Name: Elite Drilling Services Email: cljecminek@elitedrillingservices.com Phone w/area code: (303) 748-1090 License Number: Mailing Address: 3978 Ulster Street Denver, CO 80207 Sign (or enter name if filing online) ��'' 7:49' Print Name and Title Charles Jecminek Managing Partner Date: 05/03/2017 Form No. GWS 31 02/2017 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND YIELD ESTIMATE REPORT State of Colorado, Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman St., Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 303.866.3581 www.water.state.co.us and dwrpermitsonline@state.co.us For Office Use Only 1. Welt Permit Number: 56625-MH - Receipt Number: 0056625 2. Owner's Well Designation: BH-19 3. Well Owner Name: Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. 4. Well Location Street Address: 5. As Built GPS Well Location (required): IN Zone 12 d Zone 13 Easting: Northing: 6. Legal Well Location: NE 1/4, NW 1/4, Sec., 12 Twp. 2 C] N or S E), Range 67 III E or W iv, 6 P.M. County: Weld Subdivision: Lot Block Filing (Unit) , , , 7. Ground Surface Elevation: 4838.7 feet Date Completed: 04/13/2017 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 8. Completed Aquifer Name : South Platte Alluvial Total Depth: 30.3 feet Depth Completed: 30.3 feet 9. Advance Notification: Was Notification Required Prior to Construction? ❑ Yes ■ No, Date Notification Given: 10. Aquifer Type: (Check one) a ■ Type I (One Confining Layer) ["Type I (Multiple Confining Layers) Type II (Not overlain by Type III) DType II (Overlain by Type III) ■ 0 Laramie -Fox Hills Type III (alluvial/coltuvial) 11. Geologic Log: 12. Hole Diameter (in.) 6 From (ft) To (ft) 0 30.3 Depth Type Grain Size Color Water Loc. 0-5 Fine Alluvium fine, silt, cla dk brn, grey 5 5-28 Coarse Alluvium SM-GM 28-30 Lignite black 13. Plain Casing OD (in) Kind Wall Size 2 PVC 0.154 (in) From (ft) To (ft) 0 8 Perforated Casing Screen Slot Size (in): 0.01 OD (in) Kind Wall Size 2 PVC 0.154 (in) From (ft) To (ft) 8 30 14. Filter Pack: Material 10-20 Silica 15. Packer Placement: Type Depth Size #50 Interval 10-30 16. Grouting Record Material Amount Density Interval Method Remarks: 17. Disinfection: Type N/A Amt. Used 18. Well Yield Estimate Data: QCheck box if Test Data is submitted on Form Number GWS-39, Well Yield Test Report Well Yield Estimate Method: Static Level: 5.8 Estimated Yield (gpm) Estimate Length (hrs) Date/Time measured: 4/15/17 Remarks: 19. I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof, and they are true to my knowledge. This document is signed (or name entered if filing online) and certified in accordance with Rule 17.4 of the Water Welt Construction Rules, 2 CCR 402 2. The filing of a document that contains false statements is a violation of section 37 91 108(1)(e), C.R.S., and is punishable by fines up to $1,000 and/or revocation of the contracting license. If filing online the State Engineer considers the entry of the licensed contractor's name to be compliance with Rule 17.4. Company Name: Elite Drilling Services Email: ctjecminek@etitedrillingservices.com Phone w/area code: (303) 748-1090 License Number: Mailing Address: 3978 Ulster Street Denver, CO 80207 Sign (or enter name if filin nline) L/�46.-1-4. Print Name and Title Charles Jecminek Managing Partner Date: 05/03/2017 5/12/2017 State of Colorado Water Resources - View Well Details: Receipt 0056624 Colorado's Well Permit Search THIS PAGE IS NOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT The information contained on this page is a summary of the permit file and may not reflect all details of the well permit. (Full Disclaimer) Well Constructed 0056624 Division: 1 56624 -MN - Water District: 2 County: WELD Management District: Receipt: Permit #: Well Name / #: Designated Basin: Case Number: WDID: Help Last Refresh: 5/12/2017 12:02:31 AM [-] Imaged Documents - Permit File Document Name Date Imaged Annotated [-] Applicant/Contact Applicant/Contact Name NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS Mailing Address J&T CONSULTING 305 DENVER AVE City/State/Zip FT LUPTON, CO 80621- [-] Location Information Approved Well Location: Q40 Q160 Section 1 Township Range PM Footage from Section Lines 2.0N 67.0W Sixth Northing (UTM y): 4446290.5 Easting (UTM x): 513714.6 Location Accuracy: Spotted from quarters Subdivision Name Filing Block Lot Parcel ID: Acres in Tract: [-] Permit Details Date Issued: 03/29/2017 Date Expires: 06/27/2017 Uses (See Imaged Documents for more infomaton) General Use(s): OTHER Special Use: MONITORING WELL Area which may be irrigated: Annual volume of appropriation: Statute: Cross Reference Permit(s): Permit Number Receipt Comments: HOLES TO BE CONSTRUCTED TWO (2). TWO (2) WCR RECEIVED. Aquifer(s): ALL UNNAMED AQUIFERS [-] Construction/Usage Details Well Construction Date: 04/15/2017 Well Plugged: Pump Installation Date: 1st Beneficial Use: Elevation Depth Perforated Casing (Top) Perforated Casing (Bottom) Static Water Level Pump Rate 11 38 4 4834 38 [-] Application/Permit History Well Construction Report Received Well Constructed Application Received Permit Issued 05/10/2017 04/15/2017 03/29/2017 03/29/2017 Disclaimer *The information contained on this paae is a summary of the permit file and may not reflect all details of the well permit. THIS PAGE IS NOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT. This pane should not be used as a basis for any legal consideration. to determine the allowed uses of the well, to determine construction information, or to determine the terms and conditions under which the well can operate. The complete well permit file should be viewed to obtain details on the allowed uses and other relevant information. A complete copy of this file is available in the "Imaged Documents" section of this page, and can be viewed by opening all of the documents listed under that section (documents will open as pdf files). http://www.dwr.state.co.us/WellPermitSearchNiew.aspx?receipt=0056624 1/2 5/12/2017 State of Colorado Water Resources - View Well Details: Receipt 0056624 Note that all of the terms and conditions under which a well can operate, particularly for non-exempt wells, may not be specified on the well permit. Wells may also be subject to relevant statutes, rules and decrees. To learn more about well permitting in Colorado, please visit DWR's Well Permitting Page. If you have any questions about this well permit file, please contact the DWR Ground Water Information Desk. Copyright © 2016 Colorado Division of Water Resources. All rights reserved. 1 ct 3 iKelp `la.,., . ' D k Privacv Policy l Tr: http://www.dwr.state.co.uslwellPermitSearchMew.aspx?receipt=0056624 2/2 5/12/2017 State of Colorado Water Resources - View Well Details: Receipt 0056625 T; )JJJ;� JJ !]U]:i,01J s)'! YbalAr c t yc :. Colorado's Well Permit Search THIS PAGE IS NOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT The information contained on this page is a summary of the permit file and may not reflect all details of the well permit. (Full Disclaimer) Well Constructed Receipt: 0056625 Permit #: 56625-MH - Well Name / #: Designated Basin: Case Number: WDID: Division: Water District: County: Management District: 1 2 WELD Help I Last Refresh: 5/12/2017 12:02:31 AM [—] Imaged Documents - Permit File Document Name Date Imaged Annotated [-] Applicant/Contact Applicant/Contact Name NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS Mailing Address J&T CONSULTING 305 DENVER AVE City/State/Zip FT LUPTON, CO 80621- [-] Location Information Approved Well Location: Q40 Q160 Section 12 Northing (UTM y): Location Accuracy: Subdivision Name Filing Block Lot Parcel ID: Township Range PM Footage from Section Lines 2.0N 67.0W Sixth 1441675.5 Easting (UTM x): Spotted from quarters Acres in Tract: 513692.7 [-] Permit Details Date Issued: 03/29/2017 Date Expires: 06/27/2017 Uses (See Imaged Documents for more infoma>5•on) General Use(s): OTHER Special Use: MONITORING WELL Area which may be irrigated: Annual volume of appropriation: Statute: Cross Reference Permit(s): Permit Number Receipt Comments: HOLES TO BE CONSTRUCTED THREE (3). THREE (3) WCR RECEIVED Aquifer(s): ALL UNNAMED AQUIFERS [-] Construction/Usage Details Well Construction Date: 04/14/2017 Pump Installation Date: Well Plugged: 1st Beneficial Use: Elevation Depth Perforated Casing (Top) Perforated Casing (Bottom) Static Water Level Pump Rate 4837 42 10 42 4 [-] Application/Permit History Well Construction Report Received Well Constructed Application Received Permit Issued 05/10/2017 04/14/2017 03/29/2017 03/29/2017 Disclaimer *The information contained on this naae is a summary of the permit file and may not reflect all details of the well permit. THIS PAGE IS NOT THE ACTUAL PERMIT. This pane should not be used as a basis for any legal consideration, to determine the allowed uses of the well, to determine construction information, or to determine the terms and conditions under which the well can operate. The complete well permit file should be viewed to obtain details on the allowed uses and other relevant information. A complete copy of this file is available in the "Imaged Documents" section of this page, and can be viewed by opening all of the documents listed under that section (documents will open as pdf files). http://www.dwr.state.co.us/WellPermitSearchn<ew.aspx?receipt=0056625 1/2 5/12/2017 State of Colorado Water Resources - View Well Details: Receipt 0056625 Note that all of the terms and conditions under which a well can operate, particularly for non-exempt wells, may not be specified on the well permit. Wells may also be subject to relevant statutes, rules and decrees. To learn more about well permitting in Colorado, please visit DWR's Well Permitting Page. If you have any questions about this well permit file, please contact the DWR Ground Water Information Desk. Copyright © 2016 Colorado Division of Water Resources. All rights reserved. •( � i I I DNR € y Policy I1Rar,sparency Online.. Project. http://www.dwr.state.co.us/WellPermitSearchNiew.aspx?receipt=0056625 2/2 Hello