Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• • Petroleum Development Corporation • Limited Impact Review r ..., Storage of Materials, Supplies, Equipment, Machinery or Products. (Laydown Yard) O\oLSSON ASSOC I ATES OA Project No. 2009-2001 December 2009 826 21 % Road I Grand Junction, CO 815051970.263 .7800 I Fax 970 .263 .7456 • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 81h Street , Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945 .8212 Facsim ile : 970.384.3470 www .garfield-county.com PA - ~ LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW D LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW [AMENDMENT] GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly) l, 1 orl~9 Gd v0JNTY Bv _ N.;, S. PLA N. G );;> Name of Property Owner: Puckett Land Company , submitted by Petroleum Development Corp . );;> Mailing Address : 1 7 7 5 She r ma n st ., #30 0 0 Telephone: ( 3 03) 860-58 00 );;> City : De n ve r State : c o Zip Code: 8 0 203 Cell:( __ ) ____ _ );;> E-mail address: p whisenan d @petd .com FAX: (3 03 ) 86 0-5 838 );;> Name of Owner's Representative. if any , (Attorney, Planne r. Consultant. etc): );;> Paul Wh i s e nand , Petroleum Dev elopment Corp . • );;> Mailing Address : 1775 S herman st ., #3000 Telephone: ( 303 ) 860 -5 800 );;> City : Denver State: c o Zip Code : 8 0 2 03 Cell : ( __ ) _____ 1 );;> E-mail address: pwhisenand@petd.com FAX :~) 8 6 0-5838 );;> Requested Use from Table 3-501 or 3-502: ______________ _ Storage of Materials, Supplies,Equipme nt, Machinery, or Products. (Laydown Yard) );;> Street Address I General Location of Property: app roximatel y 4 miles n o rth of Parachute. );;> Legal Description: see attachment A );;> Assessor's Parcel Number: 2 1 7 1 - 2 9 1 -o o - o o 5 );;> Existing Use: natural gas production a nd agricu l tural activity );;> Property Size (in acres) 3 5 o ------Zone District: RL: Gentle Slopes Last Revised 12129108 • • I. GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS [The following general application materials are required for all Limited Impact Review Applications in Garfield County. Application materials and review standards that are specific to an individual use (Community Facility, Parking Lot, Library, etc,) are detailed in Sections 3-301 of Article Ill and Article VII of the Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR) of 2008.] A. Submit a completed and signed Application Form, an application fee , and a signed Agreement for Payment form. B. A narrative explaining the purpose of the application and supporting materials that address the standards and criteria found in Articles Ill and VII of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. C. Copy of the deed showing ownership. Addit ionally , submit a letter from the property owner(s) if the owner is being represented by another party other than the owner. If the property is owned by a corporate entity (such as an LLC, LLLP, etc.) Please submit a copy of recorded "Statement of Authority " demonstrating that the person signing the application has the authority to act in that capacity for the entity. D . Submit a copy of the appropria te portion of a Garfield County Assessor's Map showing the subject property and all pu b lic and private landowners adjacent to your property (which should be delineated). In addition , submit a list of all property owners , private and public , and their addresses adjacent to or within 200 ft . of the site. This information can be obtained from the County Assessor's Office . You will also need the names (if applicable) of all mineral interest owners of the subject property , identified in the County Clerk and Recorder's records in accordance w ith §24-65 .5-101 , et seq . (That information may be found in your title policy under Exceptions to Title). E. Vicinity map : An 8 % x 11 vicin ity map locating the parcel in the County. The vicinity map shall clearly show the boundaries of the subject property and all property within a 3-mile radius of the subject property. The map shall be at a minimum scale of 1 "=2000' showing the general topographic and geographic relation of the proposed land use change to the surrounding area for which a copy of U.S.G .S . quadrangle map may be used . F. A copy of the Pre-Application Conference form from the original Pre- Application Conference. G. Submit 3 copies of this completed applicat ion and all the required submittal materials to the Building and Planning Department. Staff will request additional copies once the application has been deemed technically complete. I. Limited Impact Review Process The following section outlines and describes the Limited Impact Review process for the variety of uses that are governed by the Board of County Commissioners by the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Please refer to Articles Ill and VII in the regulations themselves for a higher level of detail. [The following process is required for applications for land use changes that are subject to Limited Impact Review as defined in Table 3-501 or 3-502 in Article Ill.] A. Outline of Process. The Limited Impact Review process shall consist of the following procedures: 1. Pre-Application Conference (4-103 (A)) 2. Application (4-103 (B)) 3. Determination of Completeness (4-103 (C)) 4 . Evaluation by the Director/Staff Review (4-103 (E)) 5. Public Hearing and Decision by the Board of County Comm issioners (4-103(G)) B . Submittal Materials : The following materials shall be submitted with a Limited Impact Review application and are more fully defined in Section 4-502 of Article IV of the ULUR. The Director may waive or alter any of these requirements if they are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary to determining if the application satisfies applicable standards. 1. Application Form and Fees 2 . Site Plan (4-502(C)(3)) 3. Land Suitability Analysis (4-502(D)) 4. Impact Analysis (4-502(E)) II. Limited Impact Review Amendment Process Any proposal to change conditions of approval or a site plan approved under these Regulations as a Limited Impact Review permit shall require application to the Director for Amendment of a Limited Impact Permit Approval. The Director shall review the application to determine whether the proposed change constitutes a substantial change to the Limited Impact Permit approval pursuant to Section 4 -107 of Article IV . A. Outline of Process. The review process for a proposed Amendment of an Approved Limited Impact Review shall consist of the following procedures . 1. Pre-Application Conference ( 4-103 (A)) 2 . Application (4-103 (B)) 3. Determination of Completeness (4-103 (C)) 4. Evaluation by the Director/Staff Review (4-103 (E)) • e • • 5. Decision by Director (4-104(8)(5)) 6. Public Hearing and Decision by the Board of County Commissioners (4-103 (G)) B. Submittal Materials: The following materials shall be submitted with a Limited Impact Review Amendment application and are more fully defined in Section 4-502 of Article IV of the ULUR . The Directo r may waive or alter any of these requirements if they are determined to be i nappropriate or unnecessary to determining if the application satisfies applicable standards. 1. Application Form 2. Supporting documents necessary to eva luate the proposed revision(s) 3. Written Statement of proposed amendment(s) which includes how the requested amendment does not result in a substantial change defined here: Substantial Change. A change to and existing approved land use resulting in one or more of the following : 1. A change in land use category. 2 . A change in site design which increases a . The number of dwelling units. b. The maximum square footage of structures less than 10, 000 sq . ft. over 100% and structures over 10,000 sq . ft. by 10%, if a maximum has been specified in a permit or approval. c. Projected traffic such that a highway access permit or an amendment to a highway access permit is required as a result of the change . d. The size of the land which is the subject of the permit or approval 3 . A change in land use which creates or increases the incompatibility of the use . I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge . information ~!.;e~y Owner) /;/-9~a2009 oite GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM (Shall be submitted with application) GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Petrol e um Deve lopment Corp ____ Property Owner (hereinafter OWNER) agree as follows : 1. OWNER has submitted to COUNTY an application for L aydown y ard for the Storage of Materials, Supplies, etc (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2 . OWNER understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No . 98-09, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure . 3. OWNER and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project , it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application . OWNER agrees to make payment of the Base Fee , established for the PROJECT, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to OWNER. OWNER agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred . 4 . The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the in itial Base Fee, OWNER shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the process ing of the PROJECT mentioned above. OWNER acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit , zoning amendment, or subdivision plan . PROPERTY OWNER (OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) ~£.xi~ /tJtJllMNfl£ e2 9 .d ao 'I Date Mailing Address: 1775 S h erman St., #3000 Denve r, CO 8 0203 • Page 4 • • • • Attachment A PUCKETT LAND COMPANY PARCEL NUMBER 217 1-291-00-005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECT,TWN,RNG:29-6-96 DESC: SEC 28 , LOT 4(40.53A), S2NW & LOT 9(31.87A) & NESW DESC: (33.55A) SEC 29 LOT 1(40.97A) 5(41.03A) 6(41.07A) DESC: 7(41.05A) DESC : EXCEPT 10.28 AC. FOR CO . RD. 215 • GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.garfield-county.com PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Tom Veljic PROJECT: Puckett Land, Storage Site OWNER: Puckett Land Company PreApp DATE: July 23, 2009 (REVISED 11/16/2009) PARCEL: 2171-291-00-005 ZONING: Resource Land-GS REPRESENTATIVE: Paul Whisenand and Terry Tracy PRACTICAL LOCATION: CR 215, 4 miles north of Parachute TYPE OF APPLICATION: Limited Impact Review for Storage of Materials, Supplies, Equipment , · Machinery, or Products (Industrial Standards) · GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION -The site Is located north of Parachute on the west side of County Road 215. Access to the proposed Storage Yard would be directly off of CR 215. The Assessors record shows the entire parcel is 350 acres in area and the proposed Contractor's Yard is approximately 5+ acres. The proposal is for a Outdoor Storage t o store equipment, pi p e, and empty tanks (300 gallon) on a gravel base. A single lean-to structure is proposed which must be located outside of the 100 foot building setback for Industrial Uses in the RL zoning district. ·The discussion Included the length of the entry d ri ve near the proposed gates and adequate space for trucks during entry to the site; Standards for industrial Uses in the RL zoning d ist rict (Section 7-810 ); and adequate screening for the site with berms and/or sight obscuring fencing. Ownership was stated as Puckett Land Company and ownership was verified in the County Record. Authority to act on behalf of Puckett land Company Is required as part o f the application which includes a copy of any corporate documents for signatures. I. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS: • Garfield County Comprehensive Plan • Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution o Article Ill, Zoning • Resource Land-Gentle Slopes o Article IV, Application and Review Procedures (Section 4-103) • Section 4-105 Limited Impact Review • Section 4-501 E Application Materials • Section 4-502 Description of Submittal Requirements o Article, VII, Standards (Sections 7-810, Industrial Uses) • Division 3, Site Planning and Compatible Design (7-301 -7-309) II. PROCESS In summary, the process will be the following (Sections 4-101 A and 4-103): 1. Pre-application Meeting (held 7/23/2009) 2 . Submittal of complete Limited Impact Review Application 3. Review by staff for Technically Complete (TC) Status 4. Notice of TC to applicant with schedule; Applicant submits copies for referral to reviewing agencies 5. Applicant prepares public notice for advertising, mailing, and posting of site 6. Hearing scheduled for Board of County Commissioners and copies sent to referring agencies and departments 7. Staff report preparation 8. Staff report preparation and Board of County Commissioners hearing for Preliminary Plan Submittal and Review with Decision by Board of County Commissioners Ill. APPLICATION REVIEW a. Review by: b. Public Hearing: c. Referral Agencies: Staff for completeness recommendation and referral agencies for additional technical review =Planning Commission _X_ Board of County Commissioners = Board of Adjustment Garfield County Road and Bridge Garfield County Attorney Garfield County Public Health School District Fire District City of Parachute Garfield County Vegetation· Management • • • • • • • IV. APPLICATION RE.wE.W.E.EES a. Planning Review Fees: $_400.00_ b. Referral Agency Fees: $ (Separate Check, see attached fee schedule) c. Total Deposit: $ 400.00 (additional hours are billed at$_ 40.50_/hour) Cieneral Application PrQCessing Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to referral agencies for comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval· with conditions, or denial to the appropriate hearing body. Oill;lafmer The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change In the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right . ~enll; Limited Impact Review Application Industrial Standards (Section 7-810) z ' Date ... CJ Q 1 1 :l. • ' ,£J .. DEC ti \9.., -f E c () F D E {) A T -c L () c K r .. 1'1 • -r· FEC;; 419366 MILDRED ALStORfr COU'!TY Cl t:P., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLOR ADO NO r.;:.s.L PROPERTY Tfo'1 l~SFffi DE~ll1RA llON ACCO MPAN !:::t.l TH iS IX1SU1'i1EIIT SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (Garfield County, Colorado) BOOK ~i1: PAGE'!~~ GARr!ElD ,, 1' .,... !'-,. ~ \ '.. {,.t 1 i u~.l _ _, . ) 1·'.'.lv \/ c tate Doc. f e e ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, acting through its ARCO Coal Company division ("Seller"), a Delaware corporation, whose address is 555 Seventeenth Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, Attn: Land Department, for and in consideration of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to PUCKETT LAND COMPANY ("Purchaser"), a Colorado corporation, whose address is 7800 East Union Avenue, Suite 130, Denver, Co l orado 80237, and their successors and assigns forever, the following real property located in Garfield County, Colorado: a. All of Seller's right, title and interest, in and to the fee, mineral and real property interests, excluding the water rights, if any, in the real property located in Garfield County, Colorado as more specifically described in Exhibit A (the "Properties"); b. All of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the water rights, if any, listed on Tables 1-4 attached hereto (the "Water Rights"). c. All of Seller's right, title and interest in and to all personal property, buildings and improvements located on and appurtenant to the properties described in Exhibit A (the "Improvements"). The Water Rights and Improvements are sold AS IS, WHERE IS, and Seller makes no warranties or representations of any kind or character, express or implied, including any warranty of title, quality, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, including without limitation the condition of the Improvements or their electrical, mechanical, plumbing, structural, roof or any other system, and the title, quantity, quality, priority or right to use the water rights conveyed with the Properties. Further, Seller makes no representations or warranties whatsoever regarding the zoning or other restrictions of any of the Assets or regarding what alternative uses to which the Assets might be put. The Properties are sold AS IS, WHERE rs, and Seller makes no representation or warranty of any kind and character, express or implied as to real property title, except that Seller does warrant title against any claim arising by, through or under Seller as to the real property title to the Properties. BOOK 794 rAGE 49.8 The parties specifically agree that the terms, conditions, representations and warranties contained in that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement (Oil Shale Properties) dated October 31, 1990, by and between ARCO and Puckett, will not merge with the terms, conditions, representations and warranties contained in this Special Warranty Deed. In Witness Whereof, Seller has caused these presents to be executed in its corporate name by an VllE PPE?ll>CN'T' of the Corporation, effective as of the j _/tn day of November, 1990. ATTEST ~~ ~ $-;) • _, c:. STATE OF COLORA~ ) CITY AND ) ss. COUNTY OF DENVER ) ARCO COAL COMPANY, a division of ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ~ • r !),_ The foregoing instrument wa,~1 ac~now}-e~9ed ~ef ore me ,this )!,_ day of November, 1990 by ! _,rvj_,._h_,. /\ • '1>-1 . r'-as j (.,. ;;,;zp .r .{:.,;J of ARCO Coal Company, a division of Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware corporation. (SEAL] -··-·· ',, • 1 / /,.:: :_~:./l· %_~\_;:J.L /Not'a ry Public ., //~ / l ~: My commi.ssi_on _expires: -] -··:· , .. I/ ./ / ~ -;' -2-e ! .. _/---·--~·· L (.) ~-~-: (_{,<J ~---------------------- • BOOK 794 PAGE 499 EXHIBIT A (Garfield, CO) DOW RIVER -TOSCO 40% 01 C02140038 THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS OF LAND SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD AND STATE OF COLORADO, TO WIT: TRACT 1 : SECTION 34 (AND SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH , RANGE 95 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.) THAT PART OF THE EAST HALF (E/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4), SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 95 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND THAT PART OF LOT ONE (1), SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 95 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LYING SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF (E/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4) AND SOUTHERLY BANK OF WILCOX CANAL WHENCE THE NORTH QUARTER (N/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34 BEARS NORTH O DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST, 2,987.9 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SOUTHERLY BANK OF T HE WILCOX CANAL SOUTH 61 DEGREES O MINUTES WEST, 631.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 01 MINUTES WEST, 476.9 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 59 nEC?~~ES 55 Ml~'~L'TESWEST, ·~~J.o FEET TO THE CENTER OF COTTONWOOD CREEK; THENCE, FOLLOWING THE CENTER OF COTTONWOOD CREEK, SOUTH 30 DEGREES 0 MINUTES EAST, 37.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST, 95.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES O MINUTES EAST, 218.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 0 MINUTES WEST, 250 FEET; THENCE SOUT H 1 DEGREES 0 MINUTES EAST, 106 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 0 MINUTES WEST, 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST, 228 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 0 MINUTES EAST, 138 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 0 MINUTES WEST, 103 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 19 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST, 190 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5 DEGREES 0 MINUTES WEST, 215 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2 DEGREES 0 MINUTES EAST, 180 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES O MINUTES WEST, 253 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES 0 MINUTES EAST, 75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREES O MINUTES WEST 108 FEET; AND THENCE SOUTH 50 FEET TO THE COLORADO RIVER. SECTION 34: SOUTH HALF (S/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE/4), EXCEPT THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE/4); THE NORTH HALF (N/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE/4); THAT PART OF LOT ONE (1) LYING NORTHERLY OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND LOT TWO (2). SECTION 35: SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW/4); NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW/4); NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW/4) OF THE NORTHEAST -1- BOOK ~~ PAGE!>()() DOW RNER -continued QUARTER (NE/4); SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER {NW/4); THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4) ANO LOTS ONE (1 ), THREE (3), FOUR (4) AND EIGHT (8) LYING NORTHERLY OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. SECTION 36: THAT PART OF LOT THREE (3), LYING NORTH OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND SECTION 26: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE/4). SECTION 25: THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW/4) LYING NORTH OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. EXCEPT THOSE PARCELS OF LAND KNOWN AS PARCELS NO. 400, 401, E-401A AND E-401 B AWARDED TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF COLORADO, BY AMENDED RULE AND ORDER CASE ND. 79 CV 96 DATED 12/15/1981. CONTAINING 458.759 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. -2- • e ~~------------.......... .. HAYSTACK/PIONEER 01 C0218001 8 01 C02180028 • THOSE CERTAIN LANDS AND REAL PROPERTY, WITH THEIR APPURTENANCES SITUATED, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: THE ANNEX NO. 3, ANNEX NO. 4, ANNEX NO. 5, ANNEX NO. 7 AND ANNEX NO. 8 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIMS, SITUATE IN THE MT. LOGAN MINING DISTRICT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 17: NW1 /4 (ANNEX NO. 3 CLAIM) SECTION 18: NE1/4 (ANNEX NO. 4 CLAIM) SECTION 18: NW1 /4 (ANNEX NO. 5 CLAIM) SECTION 7: SE1 /4 (ANNEX NO. 7 CLAIM) SECTION 8: SW1/4 (ANNEX NO. 8 CLAIM) CONTAINING 800 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE FOLLOWING TRACTS OR PARCELS OF LAND, SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, AND STATE OF COLORADO, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS NOS. 1 TO 13 INCL. (1) NO. 316 FEE -THE JESSYE B. NO. 7 CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1 /4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30) IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH OF RANGE NINJ:'.TY-SIX (~?) WEST 'JF "'!'. ~E SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THE JESSYE 8. NO. 8 CLAIM COMPRISING THE LOTS THREE (3) AND FOUR {4) AND THE WEST HALF {W1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4} OF SAID SECTION THIRTY (30); THE JESSYE 8. NO. 9 CLAIM COMPRISING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31), SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; AND THE JESSYE B. NO. 12 CLAIM COMPRISING THE LOTS SIX (6) AND SEVEN (7} AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SAID SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31); THE PREMISES HEREIN GRANTED, CONTAINING 600.05 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (2) NO. 317 FEE -THE DENVER NO. 98 PLACER MINING CLAIM, EMBRACING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-FIVE (25); THE DENVER NO. 117 PLACER MINING CLAIM, EMBRACING THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23); THE DENVER NO. 118 PLACER MINING CLAIM, EMBRACING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER {NW1 /4) OF SECTION TWENTY-THREE {23); THE DENVER NO. 122 PLACER MINING CLAIM, EMBRACING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4) OF SECTION 1WENTY-FOUR (24); THE DENVER NO. 124 PLACER MINING CLAIM, EMBRACING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-FOUR (24); ALL IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST OF THE SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND CONTAINING 800 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (3) NO. 318 FEE -JESSYE B. NO. 1, NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1 /4) OF SECTION TWENTY-FOUR (24), TOWNSHIP SIX {6} -3- BOOK 794, PAGE502 HAYSTACK/PIONEER -continued SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST JESSYE B. NO. 2, SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION lWENTY-FOUR (24), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST JESSYE 8. NO. 3, SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST JESSYE 8. NO. 4, NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST JESSYE 8. NO. 5, NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-FIVE (25), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST AND CONTAINING 800 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (4) NO. 319 FEE -THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4) AND THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N1 /2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION THIRTY-TWO (32), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST, AND CONTAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (5} NO. 329 FEE -lWO (2} CERTAIN PATENTED PLACER MINING CLAIMS KNOWN AS THE A.O.S.P. NO. 10 AND A.O.S.P. NO. 11 PLACER MINING CLAIMS, SITUATE IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE A.O.S.P. NO. 1 O CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1 /4) OF SECTION TWENTY-SIX (26) IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6} SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; AND THE A.0.$.P. NO. 11 CLAIM COMrr.:s:NG THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SAID SECTION TWENTY-SIX (26); THE PREMISES HEREIN GRANTED CONTAINING THREE HUNDRED TWENTY ACRES, BEING THE IDENTICAL PREMISES DESCRIBED IN PATENT NO. 940679, COVERING SAID LANDS, WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO, ON JULY 10, 1924, IN BOOK 141 AT PAGE 536. (6) NO. 330 FEE -THE A.O.S.P. NO. 5 PLACER MINING CLAIM, SITUATE IN THE PARACHUTE MINING DISTRICT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS THE TRACT SIXTY-THREE OF SECTION ONE {1) IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND CONTAINING 160 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE JESSYE B. NO. 6, JESSYE 8. NO. 10, JESSYE B. NO. 11, JESSYE B. NO. 13, JESSYE B. NO. 16, A.O.S.P. NO. 1, A.0.S.P. NO. 2, A.O.S.P. NO. 4, ANO A.0.S.P. NO. 5 PLACER MINING CLAIMS, SITUATE IN THE PARACHUTE MINING DISTRICT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE JESSYE B. NO. 6 CLAIM, COMPRISING THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4} OF SECTION TWENTY-FIVE (25} IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; -4- • e • ~OOK ?94 PAGE503 HAYSTACK/PIONEER -continued THE JESSYE B. NO. 10 CLAIM, COMPRISING LOTS ONE (1) AND T'NO (2) OF SECTION THIRTY-SD< (36), IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; TRACT FIFTY-N INE (59) OF SECTION ONE (1) IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7} SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; THE JESSYE B. NO. 11 CLAIM COMPRISING TRACT SIXTY (60) OF SECTION ONE (1); TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SEVEN {97) WEST; THE JESSYE B. NO. 13 CLAIM COMPRISING LOTS FIVE (5) AND SIX {6} AND THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION ONE (1 ) AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4) AND NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF SOUTH HALF (S1/2} OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4) OF SECTION lWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; THE JESSYE B. NO. 16 CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4), SOUTH HALF (81/2) OF SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUART ER (NE1/4), SOUTH HALF(S1/2) OF NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4), THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF {N1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4}, THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF SOUTH H.A:~t: ~S~/2) OF NORTH HA LF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ~SE~/4} .. OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97} WEST; THE A.O.S .P. NO. 1 CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION lWENTY-FIVE (25), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH OF RANGE NINElY-SEVEN (97) WEST; (7) NO. 330 FEE -THE A.O.S .P. NO. 2 CLAIM COMPRISING LOTS THREE (3) AND FOUR (4) OF SECTION THIRTY-SIX (36), TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; TRACT SIXTY-1WO (62) OF SECTION ONE (1 ); TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE N INETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; A.O.S .P. NO . 4 CLAIM COMPRISING LOTS SEVEN (7) AND EIGHT (8) AND THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION ONE (1) AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2} OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (81/2} OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF SECTION lWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; A.O.S .P. NO. 5 CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4), THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4), SOUTH -5- BOOK 794 PAGE504 HAYSTACK/PIONEER -continued HALF(S1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4), THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4), THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH , RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97) WEST; THE PREMISES HEREIN GRANTED CONTAINING ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT AND ELEVEN HUNDREDTHS OF AN ACRE (1,438.11). JESSYE B. NO. 18 PLACER MINING CLAIM SITUATE IN THE PARACHUTE MINING DISTRICT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; LOTS FIVE (5), EIGHT (8) AND NINE (9) AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION THIRTY-ONE (31.) IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6) SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN , CONTAINING ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO AND EIGHTEEN HUNDREDTHS OF AN ACRE (122.18) (8) NO. 331 FEE -THE JESSYE 8. NO. 14 PLACER MINING CLAIM SITUATE IN THE PARACHUTE MINING DISTRICT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS LOTS SIX (6) AND SEVEN (7), AND THE SOUTH ONE-HALF (81/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4) OF SECTION SIX (6), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN , CONTAINING 150.89 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (9) NO ~~2 !=E::!:: -'Tf-!E Sq_"'ND V!f.:'N: ::. 5, GRAND VIEW NO. 6, AND JESSYE B. NO. 15 PLACER MINING CLAIMS, SITUATE IN THE PARACHUTE MINING DISTRICT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE GRAND VIE>N NO. 5 CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER {SE1/4) OF SECTION SIX (6), THE GRAND VIEW NO. 6 CLAIM COMPRISING LOTS FOUR (4) AND FIVE (5), AND SOUTH ONE-HALF (S1/2) OF NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4) OF SECTION SIX (6); . THE JESSYE B. NO. 15 CLAIM COMPRISING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4} OF SECTION SIX (6); ALL IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX {96) WEST, CONTAINING 470.83 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (10) NO. 352 FEE-THE GRAND VIEW NO. 1 PLACER MINING CLAIM, BEING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF SECTION SEVEN (7), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96} WEST OF THE SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THE GRAND VIEW NO. 2 PLACER MINING CLAIM, BEING THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1 /4) OF SECTION SEVEN (7), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST OF THE SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; AND THE GRAND VIFYN NO. 3 PLACER MINING CLAIM, BEING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/2) OF SECTION EIGHT (8), -6- • e • • BOOK 794 PAGE505 HAYSTACK/PIONEER -continued TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-SIX (96) WEST OF THE SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND CONTAINING 480 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (11) NO. 3n FEE -THE A.O.S .P. NO. 6, PLACER CLAIM, COMPRISING THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4), THE SOUTH HALF (51 /2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4), THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4), THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (51/2) OF THE NORTH HALF {N1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION ELEVEN (11 ), IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THE A.O.S .P. NO. 7, PLACER CLAIM , COMPRISING THE LOTS FIVE {5) AND SIX (6), AND THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION TWO (2), IN SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE , AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4) AND THE NORTH HALF {N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (81/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1 /4) OF SAID SECTION ELEVEN (11); THE A.O.S.P . NO. 8, PLACER CLAIM. COMPRl!3!"JG TRACT NO .. SIXTY-SIX (66), IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST; THE A.O.S .P. NO. 9, PLACER CLAIM , COMPRISING THE LOTS ONE (1) AND TWO (2), OF SECTION THIRTY-FIVE (35), IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6), SOUTH, AND TRACT NO. SIXTY-FIVE (65), IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, ALL IN RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST; THE A.O.S.P. NO . 13, PLACER CLAIM, COMPRISING THE LOTS SEVEN (7), AND EIGHT (8), AND THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SAID SECTION T'NO (2), AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4) AND THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4) OF SAID SECTION ELEVEN (11), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ; AND THE A.0.S.P NO. 14, PLACER CLAIM, COMPRISING THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF {N1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4), THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTHWES T QUARTER (NW1/4), THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1/4), -7- BOOK 794 PAGE506 HAYSTACK/PIONEER -continued THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) AND THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N1 /2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SAID SECTION ELEVEN (11}, TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; AND CONTAINING 958.82 ACRES, MORE OR LESS (12) NO. 382 FEE -THE DENVER NO. 101 PLACER MINING CLAIM, COMPRISING THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1 /4) OF SECTION 1WENTY SIX (26), IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; THE DENVER NO. 102, PLACER MINING CLAIM, COMPRISING THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW1 /4) OF SECTION TWENTY-SIX (26), SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; THE DENVER NO. 119 PLACER MINING CLAIM, COMPRISING THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; AND THE DENVER NO. 120, PLACER MINING CLAIM, COMPRISING THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION TWENIY-THREE (23), SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; SAID PREMISES CONTAINING 640 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (13) NO. 392 FEE -THE RUTH NO. 1, PLACER MINING CLAIM COMPRISING THE LOTS THREE (3) AND FOUR (4), OF SECTION THIRTYFIVE (35), IN TOWNSHIP SIX (6), $01.''.u; Q;. RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH PR!NC!PAL MFq~!)IAN, AND TRACT SIXTY-EIGHT (68} OF SECTION TWO (2), IN TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH (6TH) PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND THE A.O.S.P. NO. 12, PLACER MINING CLAIM COMPRISING TRACT SIXlY-NINE (69). OF SECTION TWO (2), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7), SOUTH, OF RANGE NINETY-SEVEN (97), WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID PREMISES CONTAINING 318.72 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. -8- • • • • BOOK 794 PAGc507 HAYSTACK/PIONEER -continued 01 C0218017B AN UNDIVIDED 40% INTEREST IN AND TO THE FOLLOWING: ALL THE ESTATES, RIGHTS, TITLES AND INTEREST CONVEYED IN THE LANDS, OR IN MINERALS UNDERLYING THE LANDS IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, BY THE FOLLOWING DEEDS: 1. DEED FROM LEONARD L AITKEN, JR. TO SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY DATED JANUARY 3, 1966 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 372 AT PAGE 250 OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. 2 . DEED FROM PIONEER SECURmES CORPORATION TO SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY DATED JANUARY 3, 1966 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 372 AT PAGE 253 OF SAID RECORDS . 3. DEED FROM PAC IFIC OIL COMPANY TO SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY DATED MAY 3 , 1965 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 3~E) ,A.T PAGE 499 OF SAID RECORDS AND CORRECTIVE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FROM CHEVRON SHALE OIL COMPANY TO SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY DATED APRIL 1, 1972 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 431 AT PAGE 241 OF SAID RECORDS, EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE '...ANDS C01\l\/i:;yEo BY ~ •\!'.:' SEEDS WHICH WAS CONVEYED BY SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY TO CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 1, 1965 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 370 AT PAGE 385 OF SAID RECORDS . ·-9 - BOOK ~~£1: PAGE~{)~ HAYSTACK/NOLTE/LINDAUER/FREELAND 01 C0219008B THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD AND STATE OF COLORADO, TO WIT: TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST, 6TH P. M . SECTION 13: LOTS 4, 10, 11, 12 AND 13 SECTION 14: E/2 SE/4 SECTION 23: LOT 1 SECTION 24: LOTS 2, 3 AND 4 EXCEPT DEEDED RIGHTS OF WAY FOR RAILROAD, PUBLIC ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 818-REV. WHICH WAS DEEDED TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 12/18/1981 AND A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL RIFLE , PARS . 818-A REV. AND 818-8, DEEDED TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 06/24/1983, AND DITCHES OF RECORD. CONTAINING 173.729 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. -10- • • • BOOK 794 PAGE509 HAYSTACK/NOLTE/LINDAUER/FREELAND -continued 01 C02190148 01 C02190158 THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, TO WIT: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN THE MEANDER LINE OF THE LEFT BANK OF THE COLORADO RIVER AS SHOWN UPON THE GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICE PLAT OF MARCH 12, 1890, AND THE PRESENT COURSE OF THE COLORADO RIVER, LOCATED IN PORTIONS OF SECTION 13 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE MEANDER LINE OF THE RIGHT BANK OF THE COLORADO RIVER AS SHOWN UPON THE PLAT OF MARCH 12, 1890, FROM WHICH A BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BRASS CAP MONUMENTING THE E1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 BEARS N 46 DEGREES 24' 39" E 3113.80 FEET; THENCE S 00 DEGREES 00' 00" W 469.09 FEET; THENCE S 88 DEGREES 52' 30" E 202.82 FEET;THENCE ALONG A LINE DIVIDING THE MEANDER LINES OF THE RIGHT AND LEFT BANKS OF THE COLORADO RIVER AS SHOWN UPON THE PLAT OF MARCH 12, 1890, S 34 DEGREES 29' 42" W 1613.03 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE DtvlD!NG THE MEANDER LINES OF THE RIGHT AND LEFT BANKS OF THE COLORADO RIVER AS SHOWN UPON THE PLAT OF MARCH 12, 1890, S 85 DEGREES 25' 54" W 498.70 FEET; TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE COLORADO RIV ER; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE COLORADO RIVER THE FO!.-' fJW!NG · GCUPSES AN;:; DISTANCES: N 11 DEGREES 36' 23" E 125.89 FEET; THENCE N 10 DEGREES 25' or w 69.66 FEET; THENCE N 21 DEGREES 47' 16" W 276.15 FEET; THENCE N 25 DEGREES 18' 4-r W 276.96 FEET; THENCE N 29 DEGREES 19' 01" W 110.09 FEET; THENCE N 10 DEGREES 45' 40" W 179.48 FEET; THENCE N 49 DEGREES 47' 54" E 183.27 FEET; THENCE N 40 DEGREES 21' 20" E 112.62 FEET; THENCE N 26 DEGREES 04' 00" E 246.36 FEET; THENCE N 26 DEGREES 23' 34" E 115.11 FEET; THENCE N 20 DEGREES 19' 4r E 86 .22 FEET; THENCE N 31 DEGREES 53' sr E 109.83 FEET; THENCE N 17 DEGREES 46' 08" E 322.89 FEET; THENCE S 81 DEGREES 1 O' 00" E 955.94 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 43.237 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. -11- BOOK 794 PAGE 510 HA YSTACK/NOLTE/UNDAUER/FREELAND -continued 01 C02190178 THE FOLLOWING REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO; PARCEL 1: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 13 WHENCE THE EAST QUARTER CORNEA BEARS S 00 DEGREES 56' 57" W 807.328 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE S 27 DEGREES 59' W 3Bn.18 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N 88 DEGREES 52' 30" W 353.176 FEET TO THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE NORTH 467.612 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE N 81 DEGREES 1 O' W 1071.524 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE COLORADO RIVER; THENCE ALONG SAID RIVER CENTERLINE IN THE FOLLOWING COURSES: N 23 DEGREES 39' E 344.51 FEET; THENCE N 28 DEGREES 46' E 206.15 FEET; THENCE N 33 DEGREES 56' E 644.58 FEET; THENCE N 27 DEGREES 42' E 829.38 FEET; THENCE N 38 DEGREES 49' W 99.86 FEET; THENCE N 34 DEGREES 52' E 150.05 FEET; THENCE N 33 DEGREES 19' E 163.27 FEET; THENCE N 29 DEGREES 37' E 266.75 FEET; THENCE N 69 DEGREES 11' 54" E 458.912 FEET; THENCE N 61 DEGREES 17' 36" E 145.60 FEET; THENCE N 67 DEGREES 34' 01" E 366.38 FEET; THENCE N 74 DEGREES 41' 47" E 151.22 FEET; THENCE N 76 DEGREES 06' 02" E 463.40 FEET; THENCE N 78 DEGREES 17' 42" E 281.99 FEET; THENCE N 78 DEGREES 17' 42" E 116.33 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S 00 DEGREES 56' 57" W 154.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING . -12- • • ~-------------------~ • • BOOK ~~ P~GE!:i.1.:1. HAYSTACK/NOLTE/LINDAUER/FREELAND -continued 01 C02190188 01 C0219021 B T HE FOLLOWING-DESCRIBED LAND, S!TUATE , LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, TO-WIT: TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 28 : S/2 NW/4 AND THAT PA RT OF THE NW/4 SW/4 (ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 9} DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NW/4 SW/4; THENCE SOUTH 757 FEET; THENCE EAST 15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES , EAST 106 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST 64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63 DEGREES EAST 196 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 DEGREES EAST 261 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81 DEGREES EAST 97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35 DEGREES EAST 116 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES WEST 63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46 DEGREES WEST 90 FEET; THE N CE SOUTH 11 DEGREES EAST 214 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES EAST 270 FEET; THENCE EAST 450 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW/4 SW/4; THENCE NORTH 1320 FEET; THENCE WEST 1320 FEET TO POIN T OF BEGINNING; ALSO, THE NE/4 SW/4 EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID NE/4 SW/4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT : BEGINNING ATTHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NE/4 SW/4; THENCE NORTH 214 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47 DEGREES WEST 463 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES WEST 798 FEET; THENCE EAST 965 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID EXCEPTION CONTAINING 6.45 ACR ES, MORE OR LESS. CONTAINING IN ALL, 145.42 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED BETWEEN ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED SEPTEMBER 2 , 1986. THE FOLLOWING-DESCRIBED LAND, SITUATE , LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO , TO -WIT: TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 96 W EST , 6TH P.M . SECTION 28: LOT 4 {ALSO DESCR IBED AS NW/4 NW/4) SECTION 29: LOTS 1, 5, 6 AND 7 (ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE E/2 NE/4 AND N/2 SE/4), {CONTAINING 204.65 ACRES, MORE OR LESS) -13- BOOK 794 PAGE512 EXHIBrT A (Garfield & Rio Blanco, CO) FIGURE FOUR -MOBIL 50%, EQUITY 10% 01 C0216001 B THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LANDS : PARCEL 1 TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 98 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 30: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 (ALL} SECTION 31: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 (ALL) TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 99 WEST, 6TH P.M . SECTION 25: 51/2 SECTION 26: S1/2N1/2, S1/2 SECTION 27: S 1 /2 SECTION 28: W1/2, SE1/4 SECTION 29: N1/2, SE1/4 SECTION 32: E1 /2 SECTION 33: ALL SECTION 34: ALL SC::CT!QN 35: . A.L!_ SECTION 36: ALL TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 98 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 7: LOTS 3, 4, E1/2SW1/4, SE1/4 (BEING THE S1/2} SECTION 18: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, E1/2W1/2, E1/2 (ALL) TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 99 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 1: LOTS 1, 2 , 3, 4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 (ALL) SECTION 2: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 (ALL) SECTION 3: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, S1/2N1/2, 51/2 {ALL) SECTION 4: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, S1/2N1/2, S1/2 (ALL} SECTION 5 : LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, S1 /2N1 /2, S1 /2 (ALL) SECTION 6: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, SE1/4NW1/4, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4, E1/2SW1/4 (ALL) SECTION 7 : LOT 1, NE1/4NW1 /4, N1/2NE1/4 (BEING THE N1/2N1/2), LOT 2, SE1/4NW1/4, S1/2NE1/4, BEING S1/2N1/2} AND LOTS 3, 4, E1/2SW1/4, SE1/4 (BEING THE S1 /2) (ALL) SECTION 8: N1/2, SE1/4 SECTION 9 : ALL SECTION 1 O: ALL SECTION 11 : ALL SECTION 12: ALL SECTION 13: ALL SECTION 14: ALL SECTION 15: ALL SECTION 16: ALL SECTION 17: E1/2 • -1- • • • FIGURE FOUR -continued 01 C0216002B ALL OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS ARE LOCATED IN RIO BLANCO COUNTY, COLORADO. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LANDS ARE LOCAT ED IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO: TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 99 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 20 : N1 /2, SE1 /4 SECTION 21: ALL SECTION 22: ALL SECTION 23 : ALL SECTION 24 : ALL PARCEL 2 TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 99 WEST, 6TH P.M. SECTION 19: SE1 /4 SECTION 20 : SW1 /4 THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND SITUATE . LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, WITH ALL ITS APPURTENANCES , TO-WIT: SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN , COLORADO .. T4S ., R99W ; THE JOE T. #1 CLAIM, EMBRACING: SEC. 19, SE 1/4; THE WOODROW WILSON #12 Cl AIM , EM8~AG!"IG : SEC. ~'2. SW 1 /4. THE PREMISES HEREIN GRANTED CONTAIN 320.00 ACRES , MORE OR LESS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PATENT NO. 1174074. -2- ~ ....... TABLE 1 Page 1 LI') ....... = ABSOLUTE WATER RIGHTS -0-IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN ~ ~ ATLANTIC RICHFIELD WATER RIGHT INTERESTS Sl 'ATE OF COLORADO ,..:; = 0 = 1984 State Total • Engineer Decreed Atlantic Name of Ditch, Pipeline Stream o r Priority Date of Date of Amount Richfield or Reservoir Tributary No. Appropriation Adludicatlon (cfs or AO Ownership Low Cost Ditch, Original Parachute Creek 370 01-04 -1887 05-11-1889 5.0 els 0.5 cfs Absolute Diamond Ditch, 1st Enlargement Parachute Creek 379 03-01-1887 05-11-1889 3.2 cfs 3.2 cts Absolute Low Cost Ditch, 1st Enlargement Parachute Creek 501 04-01 -1888 05-11-1889 9.0 els 0.5 cts Absolute Low Cost Ditch, Yoeman Enlargement Parachute Creek 910 04 -25-1889 02-20-1900 1.6 cf s 1.1 cfs Absolute Rulison and Miller Ditch Colorado River 2467 12-08-1891 12-20-1929 1.6 els 0.51 cfs Absolute Jessup No. 2 Stewart Gulch 85 04-14-1888 05-10-1889 0.4 cf s 0.4 cfs Absolute Florence Ditch Stewart Gulch 94 06-03-1888 05-10-1889 1.80 cfs 1.02 cfs Absolute Rye Grass Ditch Piceance Creek 95 06-05 -1888 05-10-1889 2.4 cts 2.4 cfs Absolute McWi ll iarns & George Ditch White River 149 10-15-1900 10-06-1903 4.1 cfs 4.1 cts Absolute • East Stewart Gulch No. 1 East Stewart Gulch 210 11-01 -1899 09-04 -1913 0.4 els 0.4 cfs Absolute East Stewart Gulch No. 2 East Stewart Gulch 210 11-01-1899 09 -04-1913 0.4 efs 0.4 cfs Absolute Watson Ditch , Thompson Enlargement Middle Fo r k 240 07-14-1917 09 ~11-1918 0.80 cfs 0.1 o cfs Absolute Stewart Gulch West Stewart Gulch Ditch West Stewart Gulch 394 03 -01-1895 05-26-1942 0.78 cfs 0.47 crs Absolute West Stewart Gulch Reservoir West Stewart Gulch 394 03-01-1895 05-26-1942 13.3 AF 7.98 AF Absolute Garden Heir Piceanee Creek 395 03-05 -1895 05-26-1942 0.61 els 0.61 cfs Absolute Forney-Corcoran Ditch Wllite River 402 03-15-1989 07-03-1942 6.0 els 6.0 efs Absolute Oldl and No. 3 Piceance Creek 421 05-15 -1 902 05 -26 -1942 0.42 els 0.42 cfs Absolute L'j TABLE 1 Page 2 .... l!) LU ABSOLUTE WATER RIGHTS = -IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN 0... ~ ~ ATLANTIC RICHFIELD WATER RIGHT INTERESTS ST ATE OF COLORADO :w:: = 0 en 1984 State Total Engineer Decreed Atlantic Name of Ditch, Pipeline Stream or Priority Date of Date of Amount Richfield • or Reservoir Tributary No. Appropriation Adludicatlon (cfs or AO Ownership Forney-Corcoran Ditch White River 463 03-01-1912 07-03-1942 5.47 cfs 5.47 cfs Absolute Oldland Magar Piceance Creek 469 05-10-1913 05-26-1942 0.86 cfs 0.86 els Absolute Robert McKee Ditch Piceance Creek 487 05-01 -1917 05-26-1942 3.0 els 3 .0 cfs Absolute M.H. and M. Ditch Piceance Creek 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 1.27 cfs 1.27 els Absolute Piceance Creek Ditch Pleeance Creek 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 1.60 cfs 0.32 els Absolute Emily Ditch Pieeance Creek 487 05-01 -1917 05-26-1942 3.85 cfs 3.65 els Absolute Oldland No. 1 Ditch Piceance Creek 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 2.9 els 2.9 cfs Absolute Rye Grass Ditch Piceance Creek 487 05 -01-1917 05-26-1942 5.8 cfs 5.8 cfs Absolute Garden Heir Piceance Creek 487 05-01 -1917 05-26-1942 1.43 els 1.43 els Absolute Oldland No. 2 Piceance Creek 487 05 -01-1917 05-26-1942 9.47 cfs 9.47 els Absolute Oldland No. 3 Piceance Creek 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 0 .98 cfs 0.98 cfs Absolute • Oldland Magor Piceance Creek 487 05-01 -1917 05-26-1942 2.0 cf s 2 .0 cfs Absolute Jessup No. 1 Stewart Gulch 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 0.60 cfs 0.60 els Absolute Jessup No. 2 Stewart Gulch 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 1.80 els 1.02 els Absolute Florence Ditch Stewart Gulch 487 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 1.10 cfs 0.62 els Absolute Wntson Ditch, Thompson Enlargement West Stewart Gulch 467 05-01-1917 05-26-1942 0 .78 els 0 .10 els Absolute ,....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·~~--· • ~ ...... ~ 0... ~ ~ :::...: = 0 '° Name of Ditch, Pipeline or Reservoir Dow Pumping Plant and Pipeline Sinclair Oil and Gas Company Pumping Plant and Pipeline TOSCO Pipeline and Pumping Plant Etiton Pipeline No. 1 l I 1ompson Crnek Reservoir • Tl1ornpson Creek Reservoir Pipeline Starkey Gulch Reservoir South Starkey Gulch Reservoir TABLE 2 CONDITIONAL WATER RIGHTS IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN ATLANTIC RICHFIELD WATER RIGHT INTERESTS STATE OF COLORADO 1984 State Engineer Stream or Priority Date of Tributary No. Appropriation Colorado River 4310 01-24-1955 Colorado River 4393 11-29-1956 Colorado River 4394 12-03-1956 Colorado River 4395 12-17-1956 Thompson Creek 5002 12-17-1966 Thompson Creek 5002 12-17-1966 Colorado River 5593 02-20-1967 Colorado River 5593 02-20-1967 Total Decreed Atlantic Date of Amount Richfield Adjudication (cfs or Af) Ownership 11-10-1966 178 cfs 35 cfs Conditional 11-10-1966 33 els 33 cfs Conditional 11-10-1966 100 cfs 60 cfs Conditional 07-09-1965 10 cf s 6 cfs Conditional 11-05-1971 23,893 AF 23,893 AF Conditional 11-05-1971 33 els 33 cfs Conditional 12-31-1972 7,360 AF 7,360 AF Conditional 12-31-1972 5,541 AF 5,541 AF Contitional ~ ~ ...... = O! ~ ::..: = .o co Name of Ditch, Pipeline or Reservoir Piceance Creek Ditcl1 Emily Ditch Last Chance Ditch Robert McKee Ditch Oldland No. 1 Ditch nobert McKee Ditch 13 •md M Ditch J es sup No . 1 Blue Grass TABLE 3 ABSOLUTE WATER RIGHTS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN ATLANTIC RICHFIELD WATER RIGHT INTERESTS S-:-ATE OF COLORADO 1984 State Engineer Stream or Pr:ority Date of Date of TributaIY.._ I-Jo . Appropriation Adjudication Piceance Creek 41 07-12-1886 05-10-1889 Piceance Creek 52 11-05-1886 05-10-1889 Hunter Creek 63 04-13-1887 10-22-1890 Piceance Creek 66 04-18-1887 10-22-1890 Piceance Creek 67 04-22-1887 05-10-1889 Piceance Creek 74 05 -25-1887 10-22-1890 Plce;ince Creek 74 05-25-1887 05 -10-1889 Stewart Gulch 75 06-16-1887 05-10-1889 Stewart Gulch 76 07-11-1887 05-10-1889 • Total Decreed Atlantic Amount Richfield (cfs or AO Ownership 2.0 cfs 0.4 cfs Absolute 2.0 cfs 2.0 cfs Absolute 1.4 cf s 1.4 cfs Absolute 2 .33 cfs 2 .33 cfs Absolute 4.0 cfs 4.0 cfs Absolute 1.0 cfs 1.00 cfs Absolute 4 .50 els 4 .50 els Absolute • 0 .60 els 0.60 cfs Absolute 0.60 els 0.60 els Absolute • • ~ L"j ..... ~ ~ ~ :...: C> 0 ca - Name of Ditch, Pipeline or Reservoir Wllite River -Figure Four Pipeline TABLE 4 CONDITIONAL WATER RIGHTS IN THE WHITE RIVER BASIN ATLANTIC RICHFIELD WATER RIGHT INTERESTS S"fATE OF COLORADO 1984 State Engineer Stream or Priority Date of Tributary No. Appropriation White River 799 06-10-1968 Total Decreed Atlanllc Date of Amount Richfield Adjudication (cfs or AO Ownership 12-31-1970 70 cfs 70 cfs Conditional • • • !"" ~ ..... "'"' Ado 2 189 .vu. "°· n-te TazlD.a Ar-. No. 11-een [ \ ~ ~ ; •+ •+ •+ "' ~ ® • t ~ I .e l t ; ... =+ -i- j m ~ g ;; ,._ I I .. ® I ® l + •+ •+ "'+ .. I ~-~ l j I' r: I 6 . "i-:;.. "I-ii •+ •+ r + T T .... ® .... Ill ol L <I -:: -~-II "I-+ ..:! ;.. •..1.. •+ "+ -.. -"+-® = n; -, •+ •+ •+ m "'+ .- ® :;,_ 'i-\ .... "I- "'-;-"Is ;; I" }; "+ "' .. i ,.. "I-t--:;.. ® N ~ @ ~+ •+ •+ •+ •+ I" "' "' ,.. ... ·~ '!l. "-•+ l!i-.... ; 0 "'-"1 + !! "I- "'-•+ m ~ I I d "'" •+ II II I ;: :: L "'-"I-~ ... I = .. .. .. .. 6 ... "i .. .. lit-"I-.. i ........ l 12 !.:! ~ l\) "I-'IL ~ ® ... . 1--" ® ~ ""'1 :a (o 1--" ... II "' @ ~ ~ •+ .... ~ .. "' :a [ .. ® "'" ... "' 5 AdJo 21 73 ~ ...... • December 1, 2009 Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 He: Limited Review Process Laydown Yard Garfi el d County, Colorado To Whom It May Concern: • Ji:, <!!J PUCKEI I Land Company This l etter is to inform concerned parties that Puckett Land Company ("Puckett") has aut h orized Petroleum Development Corporation ("PDC ") to pursue the n ecessary permits for the proposed Laydown Yard located on Puckett prop erty in Township 6 Sou th , Range 96 West, Section 28 and Section 29. Should there he any questions regarding PDC's capacity , please call me at (303) 763 -1 000 . Sincerely, PUCKETT LAND COMPANY cc: PauJ \1lhisenand -PDC STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY V. Bruce Thompson as President for Puckett Land Company, a Colorado Corporation is authorized to act on behalf of, and represent Puckett Land Company in all matters related to applications for special use permits, conditional use permits, administrative permits, and land use change perm its (and may execute such applications) submitted to Garfield County until such time as Puckett Land Company files of record statement that V. Bruce Thompson no longer has authority. Puckett Land Company acknowledges that when any such permits are issued by Garfield County, the County may choose to place them of record and such permits may contain covenants that run with the particular lands identified in such permits, Puckett Land Company By: 'J.),., :-~ ("-''-\) - '"' \ l ';.. l .. !,"\ ' ,\'. :-i, \ f\1 )'\.:i.'.:> Name: Ka r en A. Karns Title: Comptroller STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE 5.l.- This instrument was acknowledged before me on this_\_ day of December, 2009, by Karen A. Karns, Comptroller of Puckett Land Company, a Colorado Corporation . '.;,.,.fc....&i..,.,,.. • .P~ .p ~.....,.,_.~ .. ~ ). --KAREN lE Bt,RON J ._ t ,~ Notary f'ut>!1 c J Stole of Color odo 1-~.;i~ I [ I \; --1 ! ,:-.,.--....., \'. ,, ' -I -•. • T fl\, -. I __ £"'-1. /'Notary Publi6t-a·(e of Colorado • • • l~OLSSON ASSOCIATES Petroleum Development Corporation Limited Impact Review (LIR) Application for Lay Down Yard Project Narrative As detailed in this application, Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), on behalf of Puckett Land Company (Puckett), is submitting a Garfield County Limited Impact Review (LIR) Application for a lay down yard to support its natural gas development activities. The proposed facility is located approximately 4 miles north of the Town of Parachute at an elevation of approximately 5,500 feet. The facility will be accessed via Garfield County Road 215 north of the Town of Parachu te and then directly off the roadway via a right of way. The facility is intended to provide PDC with areas for general storage and lay down of supplies, machinery, equipment or products. The relatively remote nature of PDC's operations necessitates the construction of this facility so that equipment and materials may be stored in a central location . The construction of a lay down yard at this location will minimize the need for materials to be transported to the area during times of inclement weather thereby increasing the safety of PDC's operations. The proposed lay down yard is located on a pa rcel approximately 350 acres in size . The approximate size of the proposed lay down yard is approximately 5 acres. It will be located in the NW/4 of the NW/4 of Section 28, Township 6 South, Range 96 West, 5th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1 ). The 350-acre parcel is owned by Puckett. This property is located within the Gentle Slopes (GS) zone of the Resource/Lands zone district and is not in a platted subd ivision . The majority of the adjacent properties are currently undergoing oil and gas development. The nearest municipality is the Town of Parachute , approximately 4 miles southeast, and there are no residences within at least a one-mile radius of the site. The design for the proposed lay down yard is provided in the attached Site Diagram(s). As indicated on t h is diagram, this facility will consist of a disturbed area of approximately 5 acres which will primarily be a graded surface that will be utilized for storage of materials and equipment. The site will be constructed of native soils , and compacted as needed. The surface will be covered with no less than 6 inches of gravel 1 to form a year-round working surface suitable for heavy truck traffic. The proposed location will be utilized for the storage of equipment including, but not limited to : production units, tubulars (flow piping, tubing, and casing), excess tankage, miscellaneous valves, fittings, barriers, pit fabric, emergency response materials and other essential items to be used in the drilling, completion, and production processes . They will also be used for staging the transport of tankage utilized in the well completion and stimulation of drilling locations. The lay down yard may also be utilized for the temporary storage of vehicles, heavy equipment and jobsite trailers prior to transport to well pad sites . The site will be graded so that all precipitation that falls on the location will drain to a retention pond in the northwest corner of the location. Diversion ditches to control surface water will also be located along the perimeter of the pad as shown on the Site Diagram . Additional detail regarding control of storm water runoff is provided later in this section. A single structure (in the form of a lean-to), designed to prevent exposure to the elements and accommodate long term storage of equipment, is a1so proposed for construction. The final location for the lean-to has yet to be determined but it will adhere to the County's set back restrictions . The perimeter of the location will also be fenced to prohibit access to the facility by livestock and wildlife . The fence will consist of an 8' chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire on top with 24' gates required for access. The facility will be accessed via Garfield County Road 215 and then via a private road easement (driveway). The driveway will provide safe and adequate access and egress onto and off of Garfield County Road 215. The proposed 35' driveway easement off of CR 215 will be permitted by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. The construction of the lay down yard would have minimal direct impact to County Road 215, and street improvements would not be necessary. No additional new or improved accesses onto a County or State roadway are being proposed or will be required . Construction at the site will begin upon approval of this application and is expected to take approximately 1-2 weeks to complete. The lay down yard will be accessible to PDC personnel and contractors 24 hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, however personnel will primarily use this facility during normal working hours from approximately 7:30 am to 6 :00 pm. The facility will generally be unmanned; however, daily inspections will be conducted by local operation personnel. An analysis of the traffic anticipated to be generated by this project is provided in Supplemental Materials section of this application. As indicated in that analysis, the vehicles that will be hauling materials and equipment to this facility during its operation would normally be hauling the same materials and equipment to individual well locations . Therefore, the frequency of vehicle trips to the site after construction is e e 2 • • complete is expected to be similar to the c u rrent operational frequency. However, because these materials and equipment can be stock piled at the lay down yard during periods of good weather, the presence of th is facility will minimize the need for trucks to deliver during in cl ement weather , significan t ly increasing the safety of PDC 's operations. All construction and operations personnel will park on site and will not block or hinder normal traffic on County Road 215. All activities on this site will be conducted out of the right-of-way of Cou nty Road 215, and all loading and unloading of vehicles will be conducted out of the public right-of-way . An Emergency Response Plan specific to PDC 's operations in t he region will be submitted to the Garfield County Emergency Operations Coordinator for review. Electrical power will be prov ided to the site via a connect ion to an existing powerline at the southeastern portion of the facil ity (see Site Diagrams for details). A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), detailing the use of site-specific Best Management Pract ices (BMPs), has been p repared for this site and a copy of construction permit application submitted to the Colorado Departme nt of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is provided in t he Supplemental Materials section. Implementation of the SWl\llP will ensure that activit ies conducted at the s ite comp ly with stormwater management regulations as required by Garfie ld County , the State of Colorado, and the United St ates Environmental Protection Agency . Implementation of these plans also ensures that construction and operat ion of th is facil ity will not impact surface r unoff, stream flow, or groundwater. In addition , no flammable or explosive solids or gases will be store d on site . Furthermore, the SWMP outlines housekeeping procedures to prevent materials and wastes for being deposited on the property in such a manner t hat they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural cause or force . Some of these measures are : • Storing materials and containerized fluids in a neat and orderly manner; • Placing any wastes requiring temporary storage in sealed containers, then collecting and disposing containers at suitable off- site facilities ; and • Contain ing sanitary wastes in portable toilets, which will be pumped on a regular basis . As indicated in the agreement provided in Append ix F, waste will be transported and disposed of at an approved facility . 3 Solid waste refuse will be stored in wildlife proof containers provided by a licensed refuse hauler. PDC will use a refuse hauling service to empty the refuse receptacle. Receptacles will be emptied as needed , with a minimum removal of once every two weeks . Refuse will be disposed of at the Garfield County Landfill or other permitted facility . PDC 's refuse hauler will maintain all records including, but not limited to, trip logs/reports and landfill receipts, and all records will be available to the County upon request. PDC has prepared a Noxious Weed Management Plan for this facility and other nearby operations . This plan is included in the Supplemental Materials section. In addition to the measures that are outlined in this plan , if deemed necessary by Garfield County Weed Management, PDC w ill implement other measures to prevent infestation of noxious weeds. • • 4 • • • Article IV 4-502 D Land Suitability Analysis L imited Impa ct Review O\.oLSSON ASSOCIATES OA Project No. 009 -2001 November 2009 826 21 '!.Road I Grand Junction, co 8150 5 1970.263 .7800 I Fax • • OLSSON ASSOCIATES Article IV, 4-502 D.1. Public Access Access to the subject property is from County Road 215 and an approximately 40' right of way (driveway). A driveway permit application has been submitted to the Garfield County road and Bridge Department. There are no historic access points t o public lands within the property boundaries. Article IV, 4-502 D.2. Access to Adjoining Roadways Access to the subject property is from County Road 215 . The nearest adjacent roadway is more than one mile to the southeast of the proposed access . The office facility will not adversely impact adjoining roadways. Article IV, 4-502 D.3. Easements All easements within the vicinity of the project area are shown as required on the site plan . The proposed laydown yard will not impact existing easements found on the subj ect property. Article IV, 4-502 D.4. Topography and Slope As demonstrated on the site plan drawings, the laydown yard is located on a relatively flat portion of the subject property . The estimated elevation for the project site is 5,400 feet. Areas of steep slope can be found to t he east and to the far west of the project location. These slopes will not adversely impact the proj ect site . If needed, mitigation measures will be utilized during any construction activity to add ress potential geologic hazards . Article IV, 4-502 D.S. Natural Features The project area is located within a relatively flat portion of the subject property at an elevation of approximately 5,400 ft . The only significant natura l features located in close proximity to the project area are the steep slopes to the east and west of the proposed location . These steep slopes and low hills are bisected by several dry washes. The project area lies along the eastern valley side of Parachute Creek. The closest extent of the proj ect site is approximately 0.15 miles east of Parachute Creek. Irrigat ed pastures are adjacent to Parachute Creek and the project site. BMP 's will be utilized during construction activi t y to prevent potential impacts from run-off activity. Article IV, 4-502 D.6. Drainage The proposed laydown yard is situated to the east of Parachute Creek on an al luvial fan formed at the base of a steep drainage off of the plateau to the east of the location. Because the location for the facility is sufficiently separated from the steep slopes to the eas t and off the main channel from the drainage to the east, geologic hazard potential from flash flooding or debris 1 flow is relatively low . The design for the facility will incorporate a number of surface water controls that will mitigate any potential impact from storm events. Due to the relatively flat nature of the existing terrain and the drainage controls included in the site plan , no drainage features will be impacted by the construction or operation of the laydown yard . Initially , disturbance associated with the laydown yard will be addressed by the area wide storm water management plan . Petroleum Development Corporation will augment the area wide storm water management plan with an additional storm water management plan and a permit specific to the project location . Article IV, 4-502 D.7. Water Other than the limited use of water delivered by trucks for dust suppression , the proposed facility will not make use of any water. Article IV, 4-502 D.8. Floodplain The project site is not within a floodplain as demonstrated in the NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report provided in the supplemental materials section . Article IV, 4-502 D.9. Soils A copy of a Custom Soil Resource Report for the office facility has been provided for Planning Staff review (supplemental material tab). The location for the proposed laydown yard facility is underlain by Quaternary-age gravels and alluvium . The location for the proposed facility is on the northern half of an alluvial fan that has developed at the base of drainage from the plateau to the east of the location . The alluvial material in this fan is derived from the sandstone and shale of the cliffs and plateau to the east of the location and is the parent material for the soils that occur at this location . The location for the proposed laydown yard is underlain by soils of the Nihill Channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes . This soil is a well drained channery to extremely channery loam that extends to depths of about 60 inches. A copy of the Geologic and Soils Hazard Report is included under the supplemental material tab . Article IV, 4-502 D.10. Hazards The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils report for this area provides information regarding the suitability or limitations of these soils for the proposed use -shallow excavations , roads and mechanical site preparation. The primary limitations identified by the NRCS for shallow excavations are based on the slopes and , to a lesser extent, the potential for cutbanks to cave and the large stones content of the soils . The limitations associated with construction of roads and mechanical site preparation are similar, based primarily on the slope of the land with lesser limitations associated with large stones content and potential for frost action. These soils have a moderate infiltration rate which reduces runoff potential and have a negligible frequency of floods (less than once every 500 years). Based on the proposed use and design for the facility, the limitations of the soils at the location should have very little, if any , impact on the facility . The NRCS also identifies these soils as having very limited capability for landscaping due to high gravel content and the draughty nature of this area . This limitation will need to be considered in the design and implementation of any landscaping for this facility . The proposed laydown yard is situated to the east of Parachute Creek on an alluvial fan formed at the base of a steep drainage off of the plateau to the east. The steep slopes to the southeast of the location have been mapped by Garfield County as being subject to major slope hazards but this does not extend into the proposed project area. No faults or other hazards are evident • • 2 • • on the Geologic Map of Colorado and other geologic maps of the area . The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility . As noted above , the site is located on a large alluvial fan deposited at the base of an ephemeral drainage from the plateau to the east. Because the location for the facility is sufficiently separated from the steep slopes to the east and off the main channel from the drainage to the east, geologic hazard potentia l from rock fall, flash flooding or debris flow is relatively low. The design for the facility incorporates a number of surface water controls that will mitigate any potential impact from storm events. Article IV, 4-502 D.11. Natural Habitat Potential impacts to natural habitat are discussed in detail within the Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report prepared by Westwater Engineering (WWE). WWE gathered information of critical habitats for federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate fish and wildlife species from the Federal Register, U.S. Departmen t of the Interior , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to data collected during the field survey , wildlife habitat maps from Colorado division of Wildlife and Natural Diversity Information Source referencing mule deer, elk , black bear, mountain lion and state-listed threatened, endangered and species of special concern were utilized and incorporated into the report. No threatened endangered and sensitive species (TESS) of plants were identified in the proposed project area. No endangered fish were ident ified in proximity to the project site . Two federally endangered fish species are known to occu r in the Colorado River 7 miles south of the project site . The Colorado River has been designated critical habitat for the federally endangered Colorado pike minnow and razorback sucker from Rifle, CO downstream to Lake Powell , AZ. Townsend 's Big -eared Bat , a species of special concern, was determined by WWE biologists to be the only species that may occur near the project area in the desert shrub lands and scattered pifion-juniper trees . This species was not observed during the survey of the proposed laydown yard site . Habitat for this species was not observed at the proposed project site ; however the bats may use the project area for foraging . There were no Birds of Conservation Concern observed during the site-survey conducted by WWE biologists. There is no suitable raptor nesting habitat at the proposed laydown yard site . One raptor nest was observed approximately 0 .25 miles northeast of the project area in a dead cottonwood tree. The nest was unoccupied at the time of the survey and did not appear to have been used this past nesting season . There are no known Bald Eagle nest sites within the project area. CDOW "NDIS" mapping shows the project area to be within mountain lion and black bear overall ranges . Bear scat was observed at the proposed laydown yard site . The project area is not mapped by CDOW as a potential mountain lion conflict area . Due to the large home range of mountain lions and black bears and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species , no significant affects from this project for these species are expected. The proposed laydown yard site is located within mule deer and American elk overall ranges , mule deer winter range , mule deer winter concentration area, mule deer severe winter range, elk winter range, and elk winter concentration area as mapped by the CDOW "NDIS ". During the survey, mule deer and elk dropp ings were observed throughout the project area . Potential 3 effects of the proposed project include the temporary loss of a small amount of mule deer and American elk overall ranges, mule deer winter range, mule deer winter concentration area , mule deer severe winter range, elk winter range, and elk winter concentration area. Due the size of the proposed facility and existing activity in close proximity to the project area, impacts to natural habitat are anticipated to be minimal. Article IV, 4-502 D.12. Resource Areas A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared by Grand River Institute (GRI) is available in the supplemental material section of this application . The inventory determined that no protected or registered archaeological, cultural, paleontological or historic resources exist on the subject property. • • 4 • • • Article IV 4-502 E Impact Analysis Petroleum Development Corporation Lay Down Yard Limited Impact Review O\.oLSSON ASSOCIATES OA Project No. 009 -2001 November 2009 ------------ 826 21 V. Road I Grand Junction, CO 815051970.263 .7800 I Fax 970 .263 .7456 5 OLSSON ASSOCIATES Article IV, 4-502 E.1. Adjacent Property A copy of the appropriate portion of the Garfield County Assessor's Map is provided under a separate tab . Garfield County Assessor's GIS data was used to create an adjacent parcels map identify ing parcels located within 200 ' of the subject parcel boundary. This map is included as figure 1. Parcel No. 217118200008 Chevron USA I NC C/O Chevron Texaco Property Tax PO BOX 285 Houston, TX 77001 Parcel No. 217119400954 Bureau of Land Management 50629 Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood Springs , CO 81601 Parcel No. 217133200019 Williams Production Rmt Company Attn : Land Dept Sandy Hotard P.O . Box 370 Parachute,, Co 81635 Parcel No. 217128100018, 213527300015 Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. C/O K.E. Andrews & Company 3615 S. Huron Street, Suite 200 Englewood, Co 80110 Article IV, 4-502 E.2. Adjacent Uses Adjacent uses primarily consist of oil and gas and agricultural activities . These uses will not be adversely impacted by construction and operation of a laydown yard on the subject property . 1 Article IV, 4-502 E.3. Site Features The proposed facility is located approximately 4 miles north of the Town of Parachute. The facility will be accessed via Garfield County Road 215 north of the Town of Parachute and then directly off the roadway via a private right of way (driveway). It will be located in the NW/4 of the NW/4 of Section 28, Township 6 South, Range 96 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado. The project area lies along the eastern valley side of Parachute Creek. The closest extent of the project site is approximately 0 .15 miles east of Parachute Creek . Terrain is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 5,400 ft . Irrigated pastures are adjacent to Parachute Creek and the project site . Steep slopes and low hills lie east and west of the project site and are bisected by several dry washes. The proposed lay down yard is located on a parcel approximately 350 acres in size . The approximate size of the proposed lay down yard is 5 acres. As indicated on the Site Diagram, the facility will be constructed to provide a graded surface that will be utilized for storage of materials and equipment. The site will be constructed of native soils, and compacted as needed. The surface will be covered with no less than 6 inches of gravel to form a year-round working surface suitable for heavy truck traffic . Site features are further discussed in the Wildlife Assessment prepared by Westwater Engineering (Westwater) and the Geologic and Soils Hazards Report , prepared by Olsson Associates (Olsson). These reports are included under the supplemental material tab. Article IV, 4-502 E.4. Soil Characteristics The location for the proposed laydown yard is underlain by Quaternary-age gravels and alluvium. The location for the proposed facility is on the northern half of an alluvial fan that has developed at the base of a drainage from the plateau to the east of the location . The alluvial material in this fan is derived from the sandstone and shale of the cliffs and plateau to the east of the location and is the parent material for the soils that occur at this location . A soils map for the location of the proposed facility is provided in the NRCS Custom Soils Report and in the Geologic And Soil Hazards Report accompanying this application . The location for the proposed laydown yard is underlain by soils of the Nihill Channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes . This soil is a well drained channery to extremely channery loam that extends to depths of about 60 inches. Limitations of these soils in relation to the proposed project are discussed in the Geologic And Soil Hazards Report. Article IV, 4-502 E.5. Geology and Hazard The primary soil limitations identified by the NRCS Custom Soils Report are associated with construction activities for this project. The soil limitations related to shallow excavations are based on the slopes and, to a lesser extent, the potential for cutbanks to cave and the large stones content of the soils. The limitations associated with construction of roads and mechanical site preparation are similar, based primarily on the slope of the land with lesser limitations associated with large stones content and potential for frost action. These soils have a moderate infiltration rate which reduces runoff potential and have a negligible frequency of floods (less than once every 500 years). Based on the proposed use and design for the faci li ty, the limitations of the soils at the location should have very little, if any , impact on the facility . The NRCS also identifies these soils as having very limited capability for landscaping due to high gravel content and the draughty nature of this area. This limitation will need to be considered in the design and implementation of any landscaping for this facility. The proposed laydown yard is situated to the east of Parachute Creek on an alluvial fan formed at the base of a steep drainage off of the plateau to the east. The steep slopes to the southeast e e 2 • • of the location have been mapped by Garfield Coun t y as being subject to major slope hazards (Figure 4). It is anticipated that all of the slopes to the east of the site are also subject to major slope hazards; however, Garfield County 's study did not extend beyond the area indicated on Figure 4 . No faults or other hazards are evident on the Geologic Map of Colorado and other geologic maps of the area . The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility. As noted above , the site is located on a large alluvial fan deposited at the base of an ephemeral drainage from the p lateau to the east. Because the location for t he facility is sufficiently separated from the steep slopes to the east and off the main channel from the drainage to the east, geologic hazard potential from rock fall , flash flooding or debris flow is relatively low. The design for the facility incorporates a number of surface water controls that will mitigate any potential impact from storm events . Article IV, 4-502 E.6. Effects on Exiting Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply Other than the limited use of water delivered by trucks for dust suppression, the proposed facility will not make use of any water. Since no significant supply of water is required , no demand w il l be placed on local water resources. Article IV, 4-502 E. 7. Effects on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas The proposed laydown yard will require minimal surface disturbance and will not adversely impact groundwater supplies or aquifer recharge areas . Article IV, 4-502 E.8. Environmental Effects Environmental effects resulting from this use are addressed in the Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report prepared by Westwater Engineering (WWE). Field surveys were performed by WWE biologists on October 51 h, 2009. The report concludes that there are no fede rally listed threatened , endangered, or candidate wildlife species known to occupy the area on or around the project area . Due to the relative small size of the project area, minimal impacts to wildlife are anticipated . The WWE report is included in the supplemental information for staff review. The existing environmental conditions are described in the Land Suitability Analysis and various reports contained in the supplemental information . Each of the factors that are required to be considered in this Impact Analysis is discussed below. · Article IV, 4-502 E. 8. a. -Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna . The impacts to flora and fauna from this facility and measures that can be ta ken to mitigate those impacts are described in detail in the Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report and Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan prepared by WWE . PDC will implement the appropriate mitigation measures prescribed by this document. Article IV, 4-502 E. 8. b. -Determination of the effec t on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. As indicated in the Class 1 cultural resource survey for the proposed project , no impacts to significant archaeo logical, cultural, paleontological and historic resources were identified. This report has been included under the supplemental material tab for staff review. 3 Article IV, 4-502 E. 8. c . -Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources , including critical wildlife habitat. As detailed in the Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report prepared by WWE , critical wildlife hab itat will not be adversely impacted by the laydown yard . This report is included in the supplemental information for staff review. Article IV, 4-502 E. 8. d. -Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions , alteration of existing native vegetation , blockade of migration routes , use patterns or other disruptions . Potential impacts to wildlife are discussed in detail within the Wildl ife and Sensitive Areas Report and Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan prepared by WWE . The proposed facility is not expected to impact domestic animals . Article IV, 4-502 E. 8. e. -Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments . There are no potentia l rad iation hazards associated w ith this facility. Article IV, 4-502 E. 8. e. -Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan , if applicable . Based on the type use and the materials proposed for storage on th is facility , an SPCC is not applicable . Article IV, 4-502 E. 9. Traffic A Basic Traffic Analysis has been prepared demonstrating the i mpacts of the proposed laydown yard (supplemental materials tab). Due to the limited i mpacts of traffic generated by the proposed use , improvements to the County Road 215 are not required. The proposed use will not increase traffic by 20% on any County , State or Federal roadway or intersect ion. Article IV, 4-502 E.10. Nuisance Adjacent lands will not be impacted by the generation of vapor , dust, smoke , no ise , glare or vibration . This use will comp ly w ith Colorado Revised State Statute regarding noise at all times . Article IV, 4-502 E.11. Reclamation Plan Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC ) has prepared a Master Reclamation Plan that is consistent with Section 7-212 of the Garfield County Uni fi ed Land Use Resolution of 2008 . PDC 's Master Reclamation Plan will be utilized for the rec lamation of the proposed facility . A copy of the Master Reclamation Plan is provided in the supplemental materials section . • • 4 P'Laydown Yard -Storage of Materials , Supplies,ipment, Machinery or Products Article VII Standards ASSOCIATES Applicable Standards Article VII, Division 1, General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits Article VII,§ 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions: The proposed use is contemplated as Limited Impact Review within the Rural Land: Gentle Slopes Zone District. Article VII,§ 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements: The project location is identified on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map as "Outlying Residential". Although the proposed use is not residential in nature, it does not prohibit or adversely i mpact a residential use on the subject property . Currently, there are no residential uses on the subject property. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, 4.0 Commercial & Industrial Uses, states that the County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base for the County that addresses environmental and social impacts of industrial uses. The purpose of the proposed laydown yard is to significantly reduce truck traffic related to the delivery of equipment and supplies utilized in PDC's deve lopment of natural gas . Storing materials on the proposed site will reduce the environmental and social impacts of operational traffic in the area. This use generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan : Article VII,§ 7-103 Compatibility: The laydown yard is located on County Road 215 north of Parachute, CO. The proposed use is consistent with the current adjacent uses . (See Impact Analysis 4-502 E . 1.) Article VII, § 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water: The proposed laydown yard will be an unmanned facility. Therefore, no source of fresh water is required for this project. (See Land Suitability Analysis 4-502 D . 7. -Impact Analysis 4-502 E. 6. and 7 .) PDC Laydown Yard -Storag e of Materials , Supplies , Equ ipment , Machinery or Products Article VII Standards Article VII,§ 7-105 Adequate Water Supply: As indicated above , a water source will not be utilized at the proposed facility . Therefore, no water supply plan is required . (See Land Suitability Analysis 4-502 D. 7 . -Impact Analysis 4- 502 E. 6 . and 7.) Article VII,§ 7-108 Access and Roadways: A new access point is proposed to accommodate the laydown yard . A Driveway Perm it Application has been submitted to Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. (See Land Suitability Analysis 4-502 D . 1. and 2.) Article VII,§ 7-108 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards : The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils report for th is area provides information regarding the suitability or limitations of these soils for the proposed use -shallow excavations, roads and mechanical site preparation. The primary limitations identified by the NRCS for shallow excavations are based on the slopes and, to a lesser extent , the potential for cutbanks to cave and the large stones content of the soils . The limitations associated with construction of roads and mechanical site preparation are si milar, based primarily on the slope of the land with lesser limitations associated with large stones content and potential for frost action . These soils have a moderate infiltration rate which reduces runoff potential and have a negligible frequency of floods (less than once every 500 years). Based on the proposed use and design for the facility , the limitations of the soils at the location should have very little , if any , impact on the facil ity. The NRCS also identifies these soils as havi ng ve ry l im ited capab i lity for landscaping due to high grave l content and the draughty nature of this area . This limitation will need to be considered in the design and implementation of any landscaping for this facility . The proposed Laydown Yard is situated to the east of Parachute Creek on an alluvial fan formed at the base of a steep dra i nage off of the plateau to the east. The steep slopes to the southeast of the location have been mapped by Garfield County as being subject to major slope hazards (Figure 4). It is ant icipated that all of the slopes to the east of the site are also subject to major slope hazards ; however, Garfield County 's study did not extend beyond the area indicated on Figure 4. No faults or other hazards are evident on the Geolog ic Map of Colorado and other geologic maps of the area . The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility. As noted above, the site is located on a large alluvial fan deposited at the base of an ephemeral drainage from the plateau to the east. Because the location for the facility is sufficiently separated from the steep slopes to the east and off the main channel from the drainage to the east , geologic hazard potential from rock fall , flash flooding or debris flow is relatively low. The design for the facility appears to incorporate a number of surface water controls that will mitigate any potential impact from storm events . (See Land Suitability Analysis 4-502 D. 10 . -Impact Analys is 4-502 E. 5.) • • Pl.aydown Yard-Storage of Materials, Supplies,,ipment, Machinery or Produ cts Article VII Standard s Article VII, Division 2, General Resource Protection Standards for Land Use Change Permits Article VII, § 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands: A. No Adverse Affect to Agricultural Operations -The construction and use of proposed laydown yard will not adversely affect agricultural operation on adjacent lands . B. Domestic Animal Controls -The proposed laydown yard will comply with this standard at all times . C . Fences -The perimeter of the location will be fenced to prohibit access to the facility by l ivestock and wildlife . The fence will consist on chain 8" chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire on top with 24' gates required for access. D. Roads -An application for the proposed access point has been submitted to Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for approval. New roads will not be constructed to accommodate the proposed use . E. Irrigation Ditches -Irrigation ditches on and adjacent to the subject property will not be impacted by the proposed laydown yard . Article VII,§ 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas: Westwater Engineering prepared a Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report for the proposed use . Adverse impacts to wildlife habitat areas are not anticipated. The report prepared by Westwater Engineering has been included in the Supplemental Information and are discussed in the Land Use Suitability and Impact Analyses . (See Impact Analysis 4-502 D . 8.; Land Use Suitability Analysis , 4-502 E. 11 .) Article VII,§ 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies: There are no wetlands or waterbodies in the vicinity of the proposed laydown yard. The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility. The site will be graded so that all precipitation that falls on the location will drain to a retention pond in the northwes t corner of the location . Diversion ditches to control surface water will also be located along the perimeter of the pad as shown on the site diagram. Impacts to water quality are not anticipated. Article VII,§ 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants: The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility. The site will be graded so that all precipitation that falls on the location will drain to a retention pond in the northwest corner of the location. Diversion ditches to control surface water will also be located along the perimeter of the pad as shown on the site diagra.m . Impacts to water quality are not anticipated . PDC Laydown Yard-Storage of Materials , Supplies, Equ ipment , Machinery or Products Art icle VII Standards Article VII,§ 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation: Erosion control, stormwater protections and the appropriate BMP 's for this project are addressed in PDC's CDPHE area-wide construction stormwater management plan and permit. To reduce impacts during construction and operation, BMP 's will be utilized to protect surface waters . Article VII, § 7-206 Drainage: The site will be graded so that all precipitation that falls on the location will drain to a retention pond in the northwest corner of the location . Diversion ditches to control surface water will also be located along the perimeter of the pad as shown on the site diagram . Article VII,§ 7-207 Stormwater Runoff: Erosion control, stormwater protections and the appropriate BMP 's for this project are addressed i n PDC 's CDPHE area-wide construction stormwater management plan and permit. To reduce impacts during construction and operation , BMP 's w ill be ut ilized to protect surface waters . Article VII,§ 7-208 Air Quality: Th is use will not impact air quality . The facility will comply with all appl icable emission- permitting requirements of the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division . Article VII,§ 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards: The project site is designated low to moderate wildfire hazard on the Garfield County Wildfire Hazard . (Impact Analysis Article IV, 4-502 E. 5. -Geology and Hazard) Article VII,§ 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils report for this area provides information regarding the suitability or limitations of these soils for the proposed use -shallow excavations , roads and mechanical site preparation . The primary limitations identified by the NRCS for shallow excavations are based on the slopes and , to a lesser extent , the potentia l for cutbanks to cave and the large stones content of the soils . The limitations associated with construction of roads and mechanical site preparation are similar, based primarily on the slope of the land with lesser limitations associated with large sto nes content and potential for frost action . These soils have a moderate infiltrat ion rate which reduces runoff potential and have a negligible frequency of floods (less than once every 500 years). Based on the proposed use and design for the facility , the limitations of the soils at the location should have very l ittle , if any , impact on the facility. The NRCS also identifies these soils as having very limited capability for landscaping due to high gravel content and the draughty nature of th is area. This limitation will need to be considered in the design and implementation of any landscaping for this facil ity. The proposed Laydown Yard is situated to the east of Parachute Creek on an alluvial fan formed at the base of a steep drainage off of the plateau to the east. The steep slopes to the • e P.Laydown Ya rd -S torage of Materials, Su ppl ies.ipment , Machinery or Products Article VII Standards southeast of the location have been mapped by Garfield County as being subject to major slope hazards (Figure 4 ). It is antici pated that all of the slopes to the east of the site are also subject to major slope hazards ; however, Garfield County 's st udy did not extend beyond the area indicated on Figure 4. No faults or other hazards are evident on the Geologic Map of Colorado and other geologic maps of the area . The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility. As noted above , the site is located on a large alluvial fan deposited at the base of an ephemeral drainage from the plateau to t he east. Because the location for the facility is sufficiently separated from the steep slopes to the east and off the ma in channel from the drainage to the east , geologic hazard potential from rock fall , flash flooding or debris flow is relatively low. The design for the facility appears to incorporate a number of surface water controls that will mitigate any potential impact from storm events . (See Land Suitability Analysis 4-502 D. 10. -Impact Analysis 4-502 E. 5.) Article VII,§ 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance: A Declaration of Negative Findings prepared by Carl E. Conner, Principal Investigator and Barbara J. Davenport of Grand River Institute (BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775) is provided in the supplemental materials section. The proposed use will not impact areas of Archeolog ic al, Paleontological or Historical Importance . Article VII ,§ 7-212 Reclamation: PDC has prepared a Master Reclamation Plan that is consistent with Sect ion 7-212 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 . PDC 's Master Reclamation Plan will be utilized for the reclamat ion of the proposed facility . A copy of the Master Reclamation Plan is provided in the supplemental materials section . Article VII , 7-810 -Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use: A. All fabrication , service or repair operations w ill be conducted within the proposed structure . B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles will be conducted on private property and will not be conducted on a publ ic right-of-way . C. As documented in this application , perimeter fencing will be utilized at th is location . The proposed use is consistent with adjacent uses . D . No industrial wastes are anticipated to be generated by this project , however, in the event that such wastes are generated , they will be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. E. The volume of sound generated will comply wi t h the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. If required by the BOCC , PDC will conduct a noise analysis of the facility after the facility is in operation to demonstrate compliance with these standards . PDC Laydown Yard-Storage of Materials, Supplies, Equipment, Machinery or Products Article VII Standards F . This facility would not be anticipated to produce ground vibration perceptible without instruments at any point at any boundary line of the property. G. Emissions of fumes which might substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard are not anticipated. Furthermore, the facility would not be anticipated to emit heat, glare, or radiation. Article VII, 7-821 -Additional Standards Applicable to Storage Areas and Facilities: A. Storage of Hazardous Materials. All hazardous materials associated with the construction and operation of this facility will be stored according to the manufacturer's standards and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes and written recommendations from the appropriate local fire protection district. B. Materials and Wastes Contained on Property. No materials or waste will be stored on the property in a form or manner that would allow transfer off the proposed storage area . C. Outdoor Storage Enclosed or Concealed. Perimeter fencing will be utilized at this location . 0 . Use and Storage of Heavy Equipment. 1. Loading and unloading activity at this location will be conducted on private property and not on any public right-of-way . 2 . Repairs and maintenance activity requiring use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within the proposed structure or outdoors during the hours of Barn to 6pm Monday through Friday . 3 . The proposed location is not located closer than 300 ' from an existing residential dwelling. 4. The proposed perimeter fencing will be at least 8 ' in height. 5 . The subject property exceeds five (5) acres and is not within a platted residential subdivision. 6. The proposed storage area is approximately five (5) acres . • • Site Location LJ Parcels County Roads CJ 217129100005 (Area: 350 acres) PROJECT NO: ORA\,l\t.i BY: DATE : 009-2001 Lesl ie Bo oth GIS Analyst 10/16/09 ADJACENT PARCEL MAP LAYDOWN YARD PETROLEUM DEV ELOPMENT CO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 3 ,200 ...... ====:::::11 .......... •Feet 0 800 1,600 1 inch equals 1,500 feet Parcels re presented lie within 200' of subject parcel O\oLSSON ASSOCIATES 826 21-1/2 ROAD GRAND JUNCTION , co 81505 TEL 970.263. 7800 FAX 970.263 .7456 FIGURE • • • WILDLIFE AND SENSITIVE AREAS REPORT PROPOSED PDC LA YDOWN YARD GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Cover Photo: Looking north at proposed laydown yard. Prepared for: Petroleum Development Corporation 1775 Sherman Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80203 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 October 2009 • • • • • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), West Water Engineering (WWE) has prepared a Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report for a proposed laydown yard . Grand River Institute (GRI) also prepared a Class 1 cultural resource report for the project site and is attached at the end of this report . The project site is located 5.2 miles northwest of Parachute, Colorado in Sections 28 and 29, Township 6 South, Range 96 West (Figure 1). The project area lies within Garfield County, Colorado , and is located on private land. Access to the project area is currently available via County Road 215 to a private access road. The primary use of the site will be an equipment storage yard to facilitate the natural gas extraction/development at PDC operations. The land use of the surrounding area is natural gas extraction/development, livestock grazing, agricultural fields, and wildlife habitat. The general project area is currently undergoing natural gas development including the drilling of wells, and the construction of pipelines , compressor stations, and access roads. 1.2 General Survey Information In preparation for developing the following report, WWE biologists perfo1med field surveys and assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and habitat s for sensitive plant species on the proposed project area. WWE conducted surveys on October 5 , 2009. The biological survey was conducted past the blooming period for many plant species and outside the nesting and breeding season for most bird species. The purpose of the surv ey was to detennine the wildlife and sensitive plant species that occupy the project area at varying periods during the year, and species that would potentially be impacted as a result of the proposed laydown yard and operational activities. Factors considered include: 1) soil type and texture; 2) existing land management; 3) absence or presence of wildlife and plant species including raptors , and other sensitive birds species; 4) special designations by Federal and State wildlife agencies; and 5) the existing natural vegetation community. This report provides written documentation that describes survey findings as well as recommended mitigation measures. 2.0 IANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation Vegetation communities around the project area have been disturbed by natural gas development and nearby agricultural fields. Dominant vegetation at the site includes: rabb itbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflous), greasewood (Sarcobatis vermiculatus), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), kochia (Kochia scoparia), and Russian thistle (Salsola spp.). 2.2 Soils Soil types include loams, sandy loams, and silty clay loams. Soil types present in the project area are those commonly found along alluvial fans and valley sides throughout Garfield and Mesa Counties. Mapped soil types , as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service West Water Engineering Page 3of15 October 2009 (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics of the project site and surrounding property (NRCS 2009). Nihi ll Channery loam is a well drained soil with 6-25 percent slopes and is the only soil type present at the proposed laydown yard site. 2.3 Terrain The project area lies along the eastern valley side of Parachute Creek. The closest extent of the project site is approximately 0.15 miles east of Parachute Creek. Terrain is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 5,400 ft. Irrigated pastures are adjacent to Parachute Creek and the project site. Steep slopes and low hills lie east and west of the project site and are bisected by several dry washes . 3.0 WILDLIFE AND PLANT SURVEYS 3.1 Background Information Descriptions of habitats for federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate fish and wildlife species were reviewed in the Federal Register, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Wildlife habitat (activities) maps, provided via the internet web by the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) "Natural Diversity Information Source" (NDIS), were reviewed and incorporated into this report in reference to mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, and state-listed threatened, endangered, and species of "special concem"(CDOW 2009a). A list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and their habitats was reviewed. This list is published by the USFWS through a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which places high conservation priorities for BCC species (USFWS 2009). Not all of these BCC species occur regularly in Colorado, and some are present only as seasonal migrants. Of those known to breed in Colorado, only a portion are known or suspected to breed within the vicinity of the project area. Avian literature sources such as the "Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country" (Righter et al. 2004) and the "Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas" (Kingery 1998) were reviewed to determine the likelihood for species occurrence within the project area. Bird identification and taxonomic nomenclature are in accordance with that applied by the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Kingery 1998). The determination of the presence/absence of suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, and "sensitive species" (TESS) plants was based on previous WWE observations of typical habitat occupied by BLM or USFS sensitive plants, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997), and locations of species documented in the CNHP statewide database. 3 .2 Survey Methods A preliminary review of the project area, using aerial photography maps, was conducted to familiarize personnel with vegetation types and terrain and as an aid to help determine the likelihood of the presence of threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife and plant species. Field data, including general project location, boundaries, and reported features, were verified WestWater Engineering Page 4of15 October 2009 • • and/or recorded with the aid of a handheld global p osi tioning system (GPS) receiver utilizing NAD83 /WGS84 map datum , with all coordinate locati ons based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate syste m. WWE biologists conducted pedestrian surveys of the area to identify and lo cate wildlife species , wildlife signs (tracks, fecal droppings , and vegetation disturbance), vegetation communities , and wildlife habitats. Vegetation types were detennined through field identification of plants , aerial photography, and on-the-ground assessments of plant abundance. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Spackman et. al. 1997 , Whitson et al. 2004 , Weber and Wittman 2001, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998). Visual searches for raptor and other bird species nests were focused on the rock outcrops, riparian areas and pifion-juniper woodland s within a 0.25 mile distance from the project site. Nest searches and bird identification were aided with the use of binoculars and song recognition , where needed. Photographs were taken of the general project location , surrounding vegetation, and terrain (Cover Photo). 4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEYS 4.1 Threatened Endangered and Sensitive Species (TESS) of Plants The occurrence and distribution of TESS plants are strongly influenced by geologic formations and the resulting soil types present in an area . Individual plant populations are scattered and are usually only comprised of a small number of individual plants . This is primarily a result of specific soil and moisture requirements of each species and the high variability in the distribution and surface exposure of the layers within the formati o n. Adobe thistle (Cirsium pe1plexans), Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus), Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica), Parachute penstemon (Penstemon debilis), Roan Cliffs blazingstar (Mentzelia rhizomata), and Debeque milkvetch (Astragalus debequaeus) are the only TESS plants with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed site (Spackman et. al. 1997). Adobe thistle was not observed during the survey of the proposed project site. This species occurs in mixed shrublands and pifion-juniper woodlands at elevation ranges from 5,000 to 8,000 ft. The Colorado hookless cactus was not observed during the survey and it is unlikely that this species will occur at the site. Co lorado hookless cactus has not been observed within the Parachute Creek Valley. It is found on rocky hills and alluvial benches throughout desert shrub communities. Debeque phacelia and/o r its associated habitat were not observed at the project site during the survey. This plant occupies sparsely vegetated, steep chocolate-brown or gray clay slopes of the Wasatch Formatio n and at elevation ranges from 4,700 ft. to 6 ,2 00 ft. The survey was conducted past the phenological cycle for this species, but the project location is not situated with in suitable habitat fo r the Debeque phacelia. WestWater Engineering Page 5of15 October 2009 Parachute penstemon occurs on sparsely vegetated, steep, white shale talus o{the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. Soils are a mixture of shale fragments and clay. This species and/or its associated hab itat were not observed during the surveys. Roan Cliffs blazing star is typically found on talus slopes below the Roan Cliffs . The project site is situated in a valley bottom; habitat for the Roan Cliffs blazing star is not present. This species was not observed during the survey. Debeque milkvetch and its associated habitat were not observed at the proposed laydown yard site . Debeque milkvetch is found within parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties. This species occurs at elevations ranging from 5,100 ft. to 6,400 ft. on fine textured, saline soils of the Wasatch Formation -Atwell Gulch Member. 4.2 Federal Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Wildlife Species Two federally endangered fish species are known to occur in the Colorado River south of the project site. The Colorado River, which is located approximately 7 miles southeast of the project area , has been designated critical habitat for the federally endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker from Rifle, CO downstream to Lake Powell, AZ (Maddux et al. 1993). 4.3 State Listed Threatened, Endangered and Special Concern Wildlife Species Townsend's Big-eared Bat, a species of special concern, was determined by WWE biologists to be the only species that may occur near the project area in the desert shrublands and scattered pifl.on -juniper trees. This species can be found in the following habitat types: mesic upland shrub, xeric upland shrub, deciduous oak, bitterbrush shrub , mountain big sage, Wyoming big sage, big sagebrush, shrubland, desert shrub, saltbrush fans & flats, greasewood fans & flats, sand dune complex, disturbed shrub land, juniper, pifion-juniper, and riparian areas ; at elevation ranges from 3,000 to 9,500 ft. This species was not observed during the survey of the proposed laydown yard site (CDOW 2009b). Habitat for this species was not observed at the proposed project site; however the bats may use the project area for foraging. 4.4 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 4.4. l Raptors Several raptor (birds of prey) species nest, reside, forage, or pass through the general area of the proposed project site. Raptor species that are common to the area include Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel , Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Northern Harrier, Long-eared Owl, and Great Homed Owl. Suitable raptor habitat within 0 .25 miles of the projectarea is limited to rock outcrops on the nearby hill slopes, cottonwood galleries along Parachute Creek, and the widely scattered pifl.on-juniper woodlands of the area. Raptor species that are listed as BCC which may occur in the project area are listed in Table 2. In addition to the BCC list, six other species of raptors that could potentially be found nesting in the project area are also listed in Table 2. West Water Engineering Page 6of15 October 2009 • • • • Table 2. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Common Scientific Name BCC Habitat & Breeding Records Name Northern • Grassland, shrubland, agricultural areas, and marshes. Circus cyaneus y Nests in areas with abundant cover (e.g ., tall reed s, Harrier cattail s, grasses) in grasslands and marshes . Also known to nest in high-elevation sagebrush. Cooper's Accipiter N •Cottonwood riparian to spruce /fir forests , includin g Hawk cooperii pifion/juniper woodlands. Nests mo st frequently in pines and aspen. Sharp-shinned Accipiter N • High density young, or even-aged, stands of Hawk striatus coniferous forest and deciduous forests of aspen or oak brush with small stands of conifers . Red-tailed Buteo •Diverse habitats including grasslands , pifion-juniper N woodlands and deciduous, coniferous and riparian Hawk jamaicensis forests. Nests in mature trees (especially cottonwood , aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility pole s. Golden Eagle Aquila y • Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas , pifion- chrysaetos juniper woodlands, and ponderosa forests. Prefers nest sites on cliffs and sometimes in trees in rugged areas. American Falco N • Coniferous and deciduous forests and open terra in Kestrel sparverius with suitable perches. Nests in cavities in tree s, cliffs and buildings . Great Horned Bubo N • Occupi es diver se habitats including riparian , Owl virginianus deciduous and coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting. Long-eared Asia otus N • Occupies mix ed shrublands. Nests and roost in sites in Owl dense cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak, junipers an d dense forest of mixed conifers and aspens. Bald Eagle Haliaeetus y • Generally nest near larger bodies of water that support leucocephalus fish populations. Nests in large trees and cliffs. One raptor nest was observed approximately 0.25 rniles northeast of the project area in a dead cottonwood tree (Figure 1). The nest was unoccupied at the time of the survey and did not appear to have been used this past nesting season. The nest was constructed of small twigs and sticks, approximately 24 inches in diameter and 18 inches in height. No active raptor nests were observed, since the survey was conducted outside the raptor nesting season in Colorado. There is no suitable raptor nesting habitat at the proposed laydown yard site. Trees and rock outcrops are not present at the project site; the site is dominated by desert shrublands . Rock outcrops near the project area are small and typically low to the ground. Many raptors prefer to nest in locations higher off the ground than what is available near the project site. Suitable nesting habitat is available in the large cottonwoods a nd box elder trees found along Parachute Creek. No known Bald Eagle nest sites are located within the project area. CDOW records (CDOW 2009a) indicate that Bald Eagle winter range is located along Parachute Creek Valley and near WestWater Engineering Page 7of15 October 2009 the Colorado River. The nearest known Golden Eagle nest is located approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the proposed laydown yard site in the rock cliffs of the Roan Plateau. Golden Eagles may hunt within the project area and along the valley of Parachute Creek. 4.4.2 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) other than Raptors In addition to the raptors discussed above , WWE biologists surveyed the project area for the presence of the sensitive BCC and their habitat that could be present in the project area. BCC habitat and nesting records , as described in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (Kingery 1998), Colorado Birds (Andrews and Righter 1992), and Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country (Righter et al. 2004) in the vicinity of the project area, are summarized in Table 3 . Table 3. BCC species that may be present in the project area Common Scientific Name Habitat & Breeding Records Name Pinyon Jay Gy mn orhinus •Pinon-juniper woodlands. Confirmed breeder in Garfield cyanocepha lu s County . Brewer's Spize lla brew eri •Sagebrush shrublands . Confirmed breeder in Garfield County. Sparrow Lewis's Melan erpes •Pinon-juniper woodlands , riparian areas , open pine forests , and Woodpecker lewis cottonwoods . Possible breeder in Garfield County Juniper Baeolophus •Pinon-juniper woodlands . Confirmed breeder in Garfield Titmouse griseus County . No BCC were observed during the survey, however the timing of the survey was conducted outside the typical breeding and nesting season for migratory birds. There is potential for Brewer's Sparrows to nest and forage in the sagebrush shrublands near the project area. 4.5 Terrestrial Species 4.5.1 American Elk and Mule Deer The proposed laydown yard site is located within mule deer and American elk overall ranges, mule deer winter range, mule deer winter concentration area, mule deer severe winter range, elk winter range, and elk winter concentration area as mapped by the CDOW "NDIS" (Figure 1) (CDOW 2009a). During the survey, mule deer and elk droppings were observed throughout the project area. Elk and mule deer utilize the winter range extensively in the project area, following the snow line to higher elevations in the spring . Mule deer rely on the existing sagebrush and shrubs for their primary food source , while elk rely primarily on available grasses for food. WestWater Engineering Page 8of15 October 2009 • • • • Project Location t.aydown Yard Elk 'i'\li ~r Co nce n ation Area Figure 1 Petroleum Development Corp. Laydown Yard Wildlife and Sensitive Areas October 2009 "'-~st Water Engineering ':;;ii Cons11lt.l n9 Englneerr. & Sci entists 0 0 .25 Miles 0 .5 1 ; . tap Sou1~. Z IPDC'oluydnwn 'l'•nl' 11).t~hOIS'oV\lldl i feAm.•1/s•.m• d OcL 12 2009 an:il • • • • • • 4.5.2 Black Bear and Mountain Lion CDOW "NDIS" mapping shows the project area to be within mountain lion and black bear overall ranges . Bear scat was observed at the proposed laydown yard site. Mountain lion typically follow migrating deer herds in search of deer as the primary food source. Mountain lion have large territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories. Mountain lion prefer to hunt in rocky terrain near woodland habitats. These habitat condi t ions occur near the project area. Mountain lion could travel through and hunt in the project area year-round. The project area is not mapped by CDOW as a potential mountain lion conflict area. Black bear are a common resident mammal in the Parachute Creek valley. Black bears are omnivorous and the diet depends largely on what kinds of food are seasonally available, although their mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits. In late fall , preferences are for berries and mast (acorns), where available. When the opportunity is present, black bears eat a diversity of insects, including beetle larvae and social insects (ants , wasps, bees , tennites, etc.), and they kill a variety of mammals , including rodents, rabbits , and young or unwary ungulates. The Parachute Creek valley provides important hab itat to black bear during the late spring, summer and fall months with its abundance of berry and mast producing plants including serviceberry, chokecherry and Gambel oak. Black bear are in hibernation from mid-November through May . 4.5.3 Small Mammals Common small mammal species (small game, furbearers , non-game) that may be present on the project site include coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), golden-mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), desert cottontail (Syvilagus audubonii), white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), and least chipmunk (Tamias minimus). None of these species were observed during the survey. 4.5.4 Other Bird Species The project area is located within overall range, winter range, and production area for Wild Turkey (Merriam's -Meleagris gallopavo merriam;j. Wild Turkeys were observed near the proposed laydown yard site in the nearby agricultural fields. The project area's nearby shrublands, understory grasses, and nearby riparian area provides nesting and foraging habitats for various other migratory and non-migratory bird species, depending on the season of the year. Bird species that may occur on the project site include: Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculates), Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides), Common Raven (Corvus corax), Black-billed Magpie (Pica pica), Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), Tree Swallows (Tachycineta thalassina), and Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura). WestWater Engineering Page 9of15 October 2009 4.5 .5 Reptiles Plateau striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus velox), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciousus), short- horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), Western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), racer (Coluber constrictor), bull snake (Pituophis catenifer), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) are reptiles potentially occurring in the project area. None of these species were observed during the surveys. 4.6 Aquatic Species 4.6.1 Amphibians The following amphibian species that are known to occur in Garfield County are not present at the project site, due to lack of water sources: northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens ), Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata). These species may occur in Parachute Creek which is approximately 0.25 miles west of the project site. None of these species were observed during the surveys. 4.7 Army Corp of Engineers (COE) WWE biologists also recorded any Army Corps of Engineers (COE) potential jurisdictional Waters of the United States (WOUS) encountered during the survey. No potential jurisdictional COE crossings were observed during the survey. 4.8 Cultural Resources At the request of PDC, Grand River Institute (GRI) conducted a Class I cultural resource inventory for the proposed laydown yard site and the inventory is provided as a separate document attached at the end of this report (GRI 2009). Findings show that no previously recorded sites are located within the project area, and that no further consideration of cultural resources is recommended for the proposed project. 5.0 AFFECTS TO WILDLIFE 5.1 Wildlife Impact Assessment The proposed project area will affect site-specific native vegetation and wildlife habitat adjacent to the project site. The project will contribute to the overall cumulative impacts to the wildlife populations in the area that are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration , and displacement through increased development. 5.1.1 Terrestrial Species 5.1.1.1 Elk and Mule Deer Potential effects include the temporary loss of a small amount of mule deer and American elk overall ranges, mule deer winter range, mule deer winter concentration area, mule deer severe winter range, elk winter range, and elk winter concentration area. Human presence and activities during the project may create a direct disturbance for elk and mule deer populations within and West Water Engineering Page 10of1 S October 2009 • • • • immediately adjacent to the project area. This distu r bance may add stress to these species during critical times of the year and may also cause avoidance of the area. 5 .1.1.2 Birds The affects to foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of bird species is expected to be minimal. Effects to local bird species would be more significant should vegetation clearing occur during the b reeding/nesting season (May 1 to July 31 ). A small amount of Wild Turkey winter range , overall range, and production area would be temporarily lost due to project development of the proposed laydown yard . This may cause avoidance of the area and stress to the species during sensitive times of the year. Raptors: No occupied/active raptor nests were observed within 0.25 miles of the project site. No Golden Eagle or Bald Eagle occupied/active nest s are located within 0.5 miles of the project site. Raptors may be indirectly affected by disturbance associated with the proposed project, due to equipment and human presence. The project may also cause minimal loss of raptor foraging and hunt ing grounds in the area. 5.1.1.3 Black Bear and Mountain Lion Due to the large home range of mountain lions and black bears and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no significant affects from this project for these species are expect ed. 5.1.1.4 Small Mammals The amount of available habitat for small mammals, including bats, should not be affected significantly by the proposed laydown yard . 5.1.1.5 Reptiles The amount of available habitat for reptiles should n ot be impacted significantly by the proposed laydown yard. 5.1.2 Aquatic Species Amphibians: Downstream individuals would be most susceptible in the event contaminants were introduced t o surface water at Parachute Creek during construction or operat ional activities. Amphibians should not be impacted by the project, because there is no habitat for amphibians at the project site. Endangered Fish: The Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker are both federally -listed fish species that occur in the Colorado River. Potential impacts from the proposed laydown yard include: sediment ation of tributaries to the Colorado River, spills of chemicals and fuels from equipment. WestWater Engineering Page 1 1 ofl5 October 2009 The project site is located approximately 7 miles northwest of the Colorado River and approximately 0.25 miles west of Parachute Creek. It is not likely that endangered fish will be affected by this project, due to both the project size and its location from the Colorado River. Appropriate application of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs), spill prevention, and spill control measures will also help reduce any potential impacts to aquatic species. 6.0 AFFECTS TO TESS PLANT SPECIES No TESS plants and/or their habitats were found during surveys, and therefore no affects on TESS plants are expected. 7.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat , quality, and prevention of human-caused impacts to resources. 7.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Habitat Sagebrush and desert shrubland communities in the project area have declined over the years and continue to do so as a result of development and loss of habitat. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species have now invaded many habitats due to construction and ground clearing of native vegetation. Woodlands , sagebrush, and native grasses are key food sources for elk and mule deer, an d provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of migratory birds and small mammals. Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore these vegetation communities, particularly the sagebrush community for sage-obligate species. Reclamation recommendations include the following: 1. Seeding of native Wyoming and big basin sagebrush should be added to the re-vegetation plan. Local, ecologically adapted sagebrush seed from the existing sagebrush vegetation near the project area should be used in reclamation. 2. Ongoing control of noxious and invasive weeds is recommended as an additional method to maintain native vegetation communities and favorable wildlife habitats. 7.2 Planning for Sensitive Time Periods and Areas 7 .2.1 Mule Deer and Elk Disturbance associated with construction equipment and personnel may cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from the proposed laydown yard site. Any construction and/or operational activities during the winter months may impact mule deer and elk populations. According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's amended rules, effective April 1, 2009, elk winter concentration areas and mule deer critical winter range (which includes mule deer severe winter range and mule deer winter concentration area) are included in the rules as sensitive wildlife habitat (COGCC 2009). No development activity should take place between January 1 and March 31 to meet the CDOW standards for the West Water Engineering Page 12of15 October 2009 • • protection of mule deer critical winter range in the project area. The CDOW at this time does not have tim ing restrictions for elk winter concentration areas; however a consultation with the CDOW is recommended for the protection sensitive wildlife habitat as defined in the COGCC rules. 7 .2.2 Migratory Birds In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by showing a good faith effort to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds, if any brush clearing is necessary, it should take place outside of the nesting seasons. Nesting season is generally considered between May 1 and July 31 in this area for most species. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If brush clearing can occur prior to May 1, most affected birds will relocate to a lternate nesting sites. After mid-to-late July, most fledging has occurred and brush clearing impacts would be minimized. Often, young birds have fledged by May 15 . Because suitable Pinyan Jay habitat is not present at the project site, the pre-May 1 vegetation clearing recommendation is acceptable and adequate to avoid destructi o n of any potentially active migratory bird nests. 7.2.3 Raptors Activities associated with the proposed laydown yard may impact raptor populations that nest within the riparian habitat along Parachute Creek. In order to reduce the potential affects to nesting raptors , it will be important that the project proponent schedule construction activities such that they do not interfere with breeding, nesting and brood rearing activities. WWE's recommended raptor nest site avoidance standards for the species observed in this survey are summarized below (Table 4) (Craig 2002, Klute 2008 , Kingery 1998). If the project cannot be completed prior t o the next nesting season , the riparian habitat along Parachute Creek should be re-surveyed during the raptor breeding and nesting season, to search for and identify occupied raptor nests near t he project. If any birds are found behaving in a manner consistent with nesting, every effort should be made to apply the timing limitation and buffer distance stipulations. T bl 4 T' a e 1mmg an db n u er recommen d f a ions f f t t or ac 1ve rap or nes s Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Red-tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 1 March -15 July Cooper's Hawk 0 .2 5 mile 1 April -15 August American Kestrel * * Golden Eagle 0 .25 mile + alt. nests 1January-15 July Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 December -15 July Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April -15 August Long-eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March -15 July Great Horned Owl * * •Great Homed Owls and Ke strels are relativel y tolerant of human act1v1ty. Ke e p act1v1ty to a mm1mum durmg breeding season . West Water Engineering Page 13of15 October 2009 7.2.4 Other Bird Species The CDOW reccomends that activities be restricted within Wild Turkey production areas from March 15 to August 15 . 7 .3 Other Mitigation Practices 7.3.1 Erosion Efforts to control soil erosion within the project area should be implemented. Disturbed soils within the project area are susceptible to erosion and downstream water quality could be negatively affected by increased soil erosion. In addition to stormwater management around the project site, other current factors (noxious weeds, livestock grazing, other natural gas development) affecting soil erosion should be managed and remedial measures impl emented . 8.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. CDOW. 2009a. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source. http ://ndi s . nrel .c o I ostate.edu/wi ldl if e .as p. CDOW. 2009b. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Wildlife Species of Concern. Threatened and E ndan gered List. CDOW Web Home Page: http://wildlife.state .co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList. COGCC. 2009. Amended Rules. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Department ofNatural Resources. Denver, CO. CWMA. 2007 . S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle , and K. Uhing. Noxious Weed s of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. GRI (Grand River Institute). 2009 . Report of the Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for a Limited Impact Review for a Proposed Land Surface Use Area (Laydown Yard) on Private Land in Garfield County, Colorado for Petroleum Development Corporation. Grand River Institute. Grand Junction , CO . Kershaw, Linda, A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn , Washington. Kingery, H. E . 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Klute, D. 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. West Water Engineering Page 14of15 October 2009 • • • • • Maddux, H., L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Noonan . 1993. Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical Habitat. Biological Support Document. U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah/Colorado Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah , 225 pp . NRCS. 2009 . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web So il Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs .usda.gov/. Righter, R., R . Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Soci ety, Grand Junction , Colorado. Spackman, S., B . Jennings , J. Coles , C. Dawson , M . Minton , A. Kratz , and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared fo r the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Her itage Program. USFWS . 2009. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice , Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington , Virg inia. Weber, W. A., and R . C. Wittman . 2001. C o lorado F lo ra Western Slope, Third Edition . University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Whitson , T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill , S . A . Dewey, D . W. Cudney, B. E . Nelson , R. D. L ee , and Robert Parker. 2004. Weeds of the West, Ninth Edition. W estern Society o f Weed Sci e nce in cooperation with Cooperative Exte nsion Services, University of Wyoming . Laramie . WestWater Engin eering Page 15 of15 October 2009 • • • • • • • • • • • • " NORTH AMERICAN GREEN' INSTALLATION GUIDE GUIA PARA LA INSTALAC·ION General Staple Pattern Guides and Recommendations Patron Guia y Recomendaciones Generales para el Engrapado Staple Pattern Guide 6.67 (2.03M) Wide Rolls Para El Engrapado 6.67 {2 .03M) Rolle Ancho For optimum results, these recommended staple pattern guides must be followed. Para obtener resultados optimos , estos patrones guias recomendados para el engrapado deberan segulrse, Use colored Seam Slltchu for qu ick, accurate seam ali gnment. 'Location of Seam St i tch~ •;r.5• (5-12.5c~m_,)'-flll>--~----m 3'(0.9m) 6'(1.8m) 0.7 ~ap(es J)<!r oq. yd . (0.8 staples ~er oq . m) · For blarii(Gts v.1h Ina optional Norlh American Green DOT Systm: pl.ace slap-'e/slakos ttuough each cl !ill! BLUE cd.cred dots. 0.7 grapas po< )'d cvad . (0.8 grapas por m cuad.) Para R1Mt3$ C<>n ol DOT Sy$lem,.. opdonal coloqua una grapa a tr&Vlls de coda pun!o AZIJL. • • t 15 &taple! per sq. yd. (t .35 &la pies per eq. m) '°' b!anks1S v,;111 Iha opUonal North American Green DOT System: pl.ace sl•pt./•l.Xes llllough eacti ol tM REO colored dots. REV. 1/04 1.16 grapn por yd cuad. {1.35 91apas wr m cuad .l Para manias con •I DOT Sysfem"' opcional eo!oque una grapa a !raves do cllda punlo ROJO. (91) 300 (04) 275 (76} 250 (69) 225 (61) 200 (53) 175 (46) 150 (38) 125 (30) 100 (23) 76 (15) 50 (8) 25 (m) ft. will vary Clepend ing on prod uct type . . Key: (-----). •....•.....•. Co lored Stitch Use colored Seam Stllcti'" (tipo de costura) con color para un allneam iento de la cos tur a y el engrapado rapldo y preciso . La colocaclon de la Seam Slltch' va a variar depend lendo del lipo de producto . Clave: (-····) .......... Puntada con Color B A 4:1 c c B A B 3:1 2 :1 1.7 slaples per sq . )'<l . (2 .0 s!aples per sq. m) c B 1 :1 For blankets wih th• op:lonal Nollh American Gre&n DOT Sy&t•m~ place s!aplelstakes l/lrough each o/ Iha GREEN ooored dots. 1.7 grepu por yd cvad. (2.0 giapac P« m ooad.) Para manta con al DOT Syslom" opclcna1 c~qoo une grapa a haves de cada pun lo VERDE . D lowlll.ed flow Channel AOO ~ Canal y lnea Coslora de Fkl!o Med/Afto E Hloh Flow Cfuinnel ~ Shorofin & ~~ Coster a ds F:u•o Alto' 3. 75 slap'.a s pa r sq. yd. (4 .5 slaplos per sq. m) Fo< bla nkols wilh the optional North A'1ter1Wl ... Green OOT Syo!em; place stap!elstal<es lhr<lcgh e!Kh cl Iha YELLOW colo<ed do ts. 3.76 \j{apas por yd c.uad .· [4.5 grapa• por m cued.) Pa ra rnen!as coo el DOT Sys!emN opcional co!o<jue una grapa a lra'IW de coda pun!o AMAAIL(O. '2"~· ~'f o++++--f-l--f-+--i-l, (5 · 12.Scm) s ..... SU!cli"' 3.4 staples per sq. yd. (4 .1 •lapla.s per $Q. m) For b~ani<ela v.ilh the o¢oml N01th American Green DOT S)stem: p!<ee slapiel•lekes lhlough each ol lho WHITE colored dol8. 3.4 giepas por yd cuad . (4. f grapae por m wad .) Para mantas coo el DOT Sy stem" opdc nal coloquo una grapa a tra\'es da cada punto BLANca ---- •. • NORTH AMERICAN GREEN• STAPLE PATTERN GUIDJ: 16 1 (4.BM) WIDE ROLLS 14649 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH EVANSVILLE , IN 47725 800-772-2040 www.nagreen.com PARA EL ENGRAPADO 16 1 (4.8M) ROLLE ANCHO ® ~-4.00' (1 .2,?M) I B.00 ' (2.44M) 1 [ r--14.00' (1:2M) • • • I~ 2.00' (0.61M) • • • • ® 4.oo· 11 .22M ) 2.0ro· (0 .61M~ • _I'--....-• o • 2.00' (0 ,61 M) c 3.00' (0.91M) T-~ 4.oo· (r22M) 0 e e e 0 1.3 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (1.5 STAPLES PER SQ. Ml 1.3 GRAPAS POA YD CUAD (1.5 GAAPAS POA M CUAD) © 1. o· (0.46M) e ~ . . . . • • • • • • 2.00' [0.611.1) •;-t •••• 4 .00' (1 .22M) • • ••• • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3.4 STAPLES PEA SQ. YD. (4.1 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 3.4 GRAPAS POA YD CUAD (4.1 GRAPAS POR M CUAD) 0 .7 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (0.8 STAPLES PER SO. M) 0.7 GRAPAS POR YD CUAD (0.8 GRAPAS POA M CUAD) © 3.00' (0 .9 1M) ----e • o 1.5Eo· (0.46Mb 0 • 2.00' ,.6lM) e O -4.00' (1.22M) 0 • • • • 0 c 1. 7 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (2 .0 STAPLES PEA SQ. M} 0 1 .7 GRAPAS POA YD CUAD (2.0 GRAPAS POA M quAD) 3.00 ' (0 .91M) e • e a e e 8 e ••••••• • • • • • • • • I• 1f'(O,OM)8 • O e J-2.00' (0 .6¥A) e e e • e ~-· 4.00' l1.22M) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '3.6 STAPLES PEA SQ . YD. (4.3 STAPLES PEA SQ. M) 3.6 GRAPAS POR YD CUAD (4.3 GRAPAS POR M CUAD) REV.1/04 ------- 1.50' (0.46M) I Roll Widths Available Upon Special Request ~ NORTH AMERICAN GREEN" STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE 13.3 1 (4.0GM) WIDE ROLLS PARA EL ENGRAPADO 13.3 1 (4.06M) ROLLE ANCHO 14649 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH EVANSVILLE, IN 47725 800 -772-2040 www.nagreen.com r f ® 3.0' (0 .9M) REV. 1/04 6.0lBM) ® 3.0' {0.9M) [ G 0 Cl • • -1.7'(0.5M) i--i-3.3' ~.OM) 1.15 STAPLES PEA SQ. YD. ( 1.35 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 1.15 GRAPAS POR YD CUAD \1.35 GRAPAS POR M CUAD) @ 2.0' (0.6M) ~ . . • • • -T • • • • • • I-1.7' (0 .5M) e • • • o e e • • • • • • • 1--l--3.3' (1.0M) 0 • • • • • • 3.4 STAPLES PEA SO . YD. (4.1 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 3.4 GRAPAS POR YD CUAD {4 .1 GRAPAS POR M CUAD) • r . -.3'~.0M) j_ 6.7' (2.0M) -i 0.7 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (0 .8 STAPLES PER SQ . M} 0.7-GRAPAS POR YD CUAD (0 .8 GRAPAS POR M CUAD) I 6.0' (1.8M) 4 .0' (1.2M) ) l 2.0' (0.6M) 4.0' (1.2M} L. © .., "" "" 2.0' {0 .6M) °T 0 e " -T 0 r- ' 0 • ---f---3.3' {1.0M) 0 0 0 ..--1.7' (0 .5M} 8 0 0 ~ 0 Qt 0 .... 1.7 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. (2.0 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 1.7 GRAPAS POR YD CUAD (2.0 GRAPAS POR M CUAD] 2.0' (0.6M} -Tr~ ® • • • • 1.7' (0.5M} i-• • • • • • • -0.83' (.25M) I ~--6······· 4.0'(1 .2M) • • • • • • • • 1-----f-3 .3' (1.0M) • • • • • • • 3.75 STAPLES PER SQ. YD. {4.5 STAPLES PER SQ. M) 3.75 GRAPAS POR YD CUAD (4 .5 GAAPAS POR M CUAD) • " NORTH AMERICAN GREEN. • • CHANNEL INSTALLATION APLICACIONES PARA CANALES @ © 1. PREPARE SOIL BEFORE INSTALLING BLANKETS, INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION OF LIME, FERTILIZER, AND SEED. NOTE: WHEN USING CElL-0-SEED DO NOT SEEO PREPARED AREA. CELL-0-SEED MUST BE INSTALLED WITH PAPER SIDE DOWN . 2. BEGIN ATTHE TOP OF THE CHANNEL BY ANCHORING THE BLANKET IN A 6" (15 CM) DEEP X 6" (15 CM) l//lDE TRENCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" (30 CM) OF BLANKET EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR THE BlANKET WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES APPROXIMATELY 12" (30 CM) APART IN THE BOITOM OF THE TRENCH . BACKFILL AND COMAPCT THE TR ENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12" (30 CM) PORTION OF BLMlKET BACK OVER SEED ANO COMPACTED SOIL. SECURE BLANKET OVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/ST.6.KES SPACED APPROX~MTELY 12" (30 CM) ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE BLANKET. 3. ROLL CENTER BLANKET IN DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW IN BOTTOM OF CHANNEL. BLANKETS WILL UNROLL WITH APPROPRIATE SIDE AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE . ALL BLANKETS MUST DE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPLES/STAKES IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAPLE PATIERN GUIDE. V/HEN USlt~G THE DOT SYSTEM'", STAPLES/STAKES SHOULO BE PLACED THROUGH EACH OFTHt COLORED OOTS CORRESPONDING TO THE APPROPRIATE STAPLE PATIERN. 4. Pl.ACE CONSECUTIVE BLANKETS END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH A 4" · 6' (10 CM -15 CM) OVERLAP. USE A DOUBLE ROW OF STAPLES STAGGERED 4" (10 CM) APART ANO 4' (1 D CM) Oil CENTER TO SECURE BLANKETS. 5. RJLL LENGTH EDGE OF BLANKET S AT TOP OF SIDE SLOPES MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAJ<ES APPROXIMATELY 12" (30 CM) APART IN A 6' (15 CM) DEEP X 6" (15 CM) \\1DE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLIUG . • ADJACENTllLANKETS MUST BE OVERLAPPED APPROXIMATELY 2• • 5' (5 CM -12.5 CM) (DEPENDING ON BLANKET iYPE) AND STAPLED . 7. IN HIGH FLOW CHANNEL APPUCAnONS , A STAPLE CKECK SLOT IS RECOMMENDED AT 30 TO 40 FOOT (9 M • 12 MJ INTERVALS . USE A DOUBLE ROW OF STAPLES STAGGERED 4" (10 CM)A0AAT AND 4" (10 CM) ON CENTER OVER ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE CHANNEL. 8. THE TERMINAL END OF THE BLAN KETS MUST BF. ANCflORED WITH f\ ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES APPROXIMATELY 12" {30 CM) APART IN A 6" (15 CM) DEEP X 6' (15 CM) WIDE TRENCH. BACKfn.LAND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING . CRITICAL POINTS NOTES: A. OVl'.RLAPS AND SEAMS A . B 0 . B. PROJECTED WATER LINE C. CHANNEL BOITOM/SIDE SLOPE VERTICES ' HORIZONTAL STA PLE SPACING SHOULD BE ALTERED IF NECESSARY TO ALLOW STAPLCS TO SECURE THE CRITICAL POINTS ALONG THE CfiANNEL SURFACE : · . .. IN LOOSE SOIL CONDITIONS , THE USE OF STAPLE OR STAKE LENGTHS GREATER THAN 6" (15 cm) MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROPERLY ANCHOR THE BLANKETS. ~ ESPANOL /IOTA : tUNiZXs'CN~~o; JUNTAS 'LA SEPARACION HOR IZONTAL DE LAS GRAPAS SE DEBE ALTERAR SI SE NECESITA, PARA PEAJAITIR B. UNEAS DE AGUA PROYECTADA OUE lAS GRAPAS ASEGUREN LOS PUNTOS CRITICOS A LO LARGO OE LA SUPEAFICIE DEL CANAL . ' C. FONDO DEL CANALNEATICES "EN COtJOICIONES DE SUELO SUELTO, PUEOE QUE SE NECESITEN GRAPAS 0 ESTACAS DE IMS OE 6" DE LAS PENDIENTES LATERALES (15 CM) OE LARGO PARAASEGURAR LAS MANTAS CORRECTAMENTE . ESPANOL 1. PREPARE EL SUELO DE COLOCAR LAS MANTAS, INCLUYEl-JDO LAAPllCASION DE CAL, FERTIUZANTE SEMILLA . NOTA: CU.ANDO ESTE USANDO CELl-0-SEED NO SIEMBRE EL AREA PREPARADA. CELL-0-SEEO TIENE OUE INSTALARSE CON EL LADO DE PAPR HACIA ABAJO. 2. COMIENCE EN LA CABECEAA DEL CM-JAL SWETANDO LA MANTA HJ UNA ZANJA DE a· (15 CM) OE PROFUNDJOAD POR a· (15 CM). DEAllCHO CONAPROXIMADAMEf/TE 12• (30 CM) DE LA MAllTA EXTENDIOA MAS ALLA DE LA PENDIENTE ALTA OE LA ZANJA. SUJETE AELLENE V COMPACTE LA ZPNJA DESPUES DEL ENGRAPE . AIEGUE LA SEMILLA EN EL SUElO COMPACTAOO Y DOBLE LAS 12• (30 CM) REMANENTES DE MANTA SOBAE LA SEMILLA Y EL SUELO COMPACTADO. ASEGURE LA MANTA SOBRE EL SUELO CON UNA LINEADE . GRAPAS 'O ESTACASAPROXIMADAMENTE 12' (30 CM) UNA DE LA OTRAA TRAVES DELANCHO Of LA MANTA. 3. DESENROLLE LA Mf\NTA DEL MEDIO EN EL FONOO OEL CANAL YEN LA DIAECCION DEL FlUJO OE AGUA CON EL I.ADO APROPIAOO HACIA LA SUPEAFICIE DEL SUELO. TODAS LAS IMNTAS OfBERAN ASEGURARSE A LA SUPERFICIE DEL SUELO POR MEDIO DE GRAPAS 0 ESTACAS EN LUGARESAPROPIAOOS TAL Y COMO SE INOICA EN EL PATRON GUIA OE ENGM PADO. CUANDO ESTE USANOO EL DOT SYSTEM"'. LAS GRAPAS 0 ESTACAS OEBEN COLOCARSE A TRAVES OE CADA UNO DE LOS PUNT OS CON COLOR CORRESPONDIENTES AL . PATRON DE ENGRAPADO APROPIA OO. 4. COl.OQUE LAS MANTAS COllSECUTlVAS BORDE SOBAE BORDE (TIPO ESCALONAOO) CON UN TMSLAPE OE 4" • 6" (10 CM· 15 Cl.~. USE UNA LINEA DOBLE DE GRAPAS ESCALON ADAS, SEPARADAS POR 4' (10 CM) Y CADA 4" (10 CM) SOBRE EL CEllTAO PAAAASEGURAR LAS MANTAS. 5, EN EL TOPE OE LAS DOS PENDIENTES LATERAL ES DEL CANAL, SE DEBE SUJETAR TODD EL LARGO DE LA DRILL.A DE LAS MANTAS CON UNA LINEA DE GRAPAS 0 ESTACAS APROXJ MADAM EN TE CADA 12" (30 CM) UNA DE LA OTRA EN UNA ZANJA OE 6' (15 CM) DE PROFUNDIDAO POR 6" (15 CM) OE ANCHO. RELL ENE Y COM PAC TE LA ZANJA DESPUES DEL WGRAPE. • ,. LAS MANTAS ADYACENTES OEBEN TRASLAPARSE APAOXIMAOAMENTE DE 2" -6" {5 CM-12.5 CM) (DEPENDIENDO DEL TIPO DE . MANTA) Y ENGRAPPARSE. 7. Erl APLICACIONES PARA CANALES DE FLWO ALTO, SE AECOMIENDA DE.JAR UNA RANUM PARA EL CHEOUEO DE LAS GRAPAS A INTERVALOS DE 30 A 40 PIES (9 M -12 M). USE UNA LINEA DOBLE OE PRAPAS ESCAl.ONADAS, SEPARADAS POR 4' (10 CM) Y CADA 4" (10 CM) SOBRE El CENTRO A TRAVES OE TOOO EL ANCHO DEL CANAL 8. LOS BORDES FINALES DE LAS MANTAS OEBEN SWETARSE CON UNA LINEA DE GRAPAS 0 ESTACAS APROXIMAOAMENTE CADA 12· 30 CM) UNA OE lA OTRA EN UNA ZANJA DE 6' (15 CM) DE PROFUNDIDAO POR 6" (15 CM) OE ANCHO. REL LENE Y COMPACTE DESPUES DEL ENGRAPAOO . 14649 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH, EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 47725 1·800·772·2040 www.nacneen.com : :. ~". . . ·-.' ·:. .. ... .. , ·. ··.: . · .. .,. __ . c~ .. ~ cross·dra:fn ~OT TO SCACE -., . .· .. • . . -:, .. ,:: . · :· ·.Cqlv~rt Installation Opti.ons . : •• \ .. • • .._ ··.•.,. t ' . --A • TYPE B ··.·· ComJ>Ocltdn'i tYPEC • e • .................... ··········-·········· ·~··················-·-.•·•··--···-·-···-·· ... ::-· .... ;..: .. ;.,,, ..... :._• .. ..:...,~:.: ...... :. .. :., __ ----·········-····· -------'········ . . ·,. •' \ ' " .. . . . . ·:. :.· :_·:··. S.trawJ~al~ .Ch~ck ,Qp,m Installation ,--------------~-..;·-,--~--:.::"·.:...,...~-.,..---------·------- si.xo - NOT TO SCALF. NOTTO SCALE "FolotAmu•tbehlgherlllolPolntB L • Olsltnoa suoh thal Pwh C and D 210 cquaJ o!a'i•U"1 ' .. ··-.. . .. \ --.• ··. :-.. 1·-~:._-_ •.. j .. .,; .. : .. .:..•..::~,! .. \. .. : .. : .. : .. .'.:_:,'...: .. :..:.;..,,·,: .. .::. .' ... ,:_;.;._ ._'.' • -..... -······-.... .:.:....=.... ... ~.:.._".......: ... __ :.~..: .... : .. .:. ___ .,., •• ________ ....... . • \ I ,; ..... .. ':._ .. : .... . . :. ::. · .. ..,· .... • •• I ' Typlcal:Pr~in~ige ,QJp · .----.---1-b---r-_-·:-b ~··· t:~":_·---;"·: ~~2~-- /i}n,, -----.. ___ JJ_ ~ ~ b d h 10' 10' O.IY 0.4' 11' w 1.0· D.Q' ... '2' IA ' -~1· I 2.0' 2.2• -~·I f6 ' I .• I .. Gll n' NOTTO SCALE • e • ..... •J•_ ..... .;.:...-•• ~-~--~·..:...:. :.· .. :- ~-. : \ ..... _. '-: 2S' • . . ....... ········'-~--··-· . .:. ... --···----··········-.. ·-· ...•..•. ··--····--.•------~·--•. w ..i. ... ··.,'': · .. • .. '• ., ..... ··. Level Spreade r lnstallatlon V<ige taled Lip Rigid Lip llOT TO SCALE • '' ••r·••••.~>.•:-:..\.'.,:..: ... : ....... '•' ·"_-_:_,.:.:.: .. • .. -••••.'•, ·• •• ••••'• •-. -· .• · • ::. ·. \. · .. . . . . . ·.· . :. ·, .. :.. ' . Typical Seed an~ .Mulch . Mix~:S M§ing. · · ....... : :: · ',f3onqe .d Fiber Matrix and Flexlb'~ .(3rowth .Medium : . ·: : · ... " ~· ·; .: :.:: . ·. .. . ... ·, ~. ~ ;. -·-. -.. -.-.· .... ----. -----·· ----- '=.Nift.:rs'f~iAL .. : DESCRIPTION QUANTITY . : ":\$~E!!.d .Mlx · Seed Hy9rau!lcally Appl!e.d. 69. JQ.~./acre ::SUSTANE:8...2-4 Sustane 8-2-4 (NYlex dlamanna@nlfex.com) 1100 lbs./acre . -··· .... Soluble . Hu mates Soluble Humates <Nvlex dlamanna@nllex.com) 11 DO lbs.facre Flexterra FGM Flexterra FGM (Nvlex dfamanna@nllex.com) 3500 lbs.lacre . . . SL ---· --·----·-~·--· -............. ---·· MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QUANTITY Seed Mix Seed HydraullcaHy Applied 45 lbs./acre SUSTANE 8-2-4 Sustane 8-2-4 <Nvlex dlamanna@nilex.com} 1100 lbs./acre Soluble .Humates Soluble Humales (Nvlex dlamannalO)nHex.coml 1100 lbs./acre Flexterra FGM Flexterra FGM (NYlex dlamanna@nilex .com) 3200 lbs.Jacre Sf..OPr=S fess lhe.n or ~crni>! to ~:1 ·-· --· -·--·- fl~ATERIAL DESCRiP i lON QIJAfHffY Seed Mix Seed Hydraullcally Applied 40 fbs./acre SUSTANE 8-2-4 Sustane 8-2-4 (Nvlex dlamanna@nlle x.com} 1100 lbs./acre Soluble Humates Soluble Humates (Nvlex dlamanna@nllex.com} 1100 lbs./acre Flexterra FGM Flexterra FGM (Nvlex dlamanna@.nfle x.com) 3000 lbs./acre Typical Seed and Mulch Mixes using Terra-Mulch with Ultra Grow and Guar Tackffier ------------·-·------.--· ------~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QUANTITY Seed Mix Seed Hydraullcally Applied 45 lbs./acre SUSTANE 8-2·4 Sustane 8·2·4 (Nvlex dlamanna@nllex.com) 1100 lbs/acre Soluble Humates Soluble Humates (Nvlex dlamanna@nllex .com) 1100 lbs./ac re Guar Tacklfler Guar Tackffler (Nvlex dlamanna@.nlfex.com} 60 lbs./acre Terra-Mulch w/ Ultra Terra-Mulch wl Ultr-Grow (Nylex Grow dlamanna@.nllex .com) 2500 lbs./aore s ---. --·~---··-··· -· --~--·· ---· - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QUANTITY Seed Mix Seed Hydraulically Applied 40 lbs./acre SUSTANE 8-2-4 Sustana 8-2-4 (Nvlex dlamanna@nllex.com} 1100 lbs./ac re Soluble Humates Soluble Humates <Nvlex dlamanna@nllex.com) 1100 lbs./acre Guar '.fackifier Guar Tacklfier (Nvlex dlamanna@nllex.com) 50 lbs./acre • • ... : .. •·, ··. :. • . ·. · .. . ..... . . . : . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . : ... ~ . ·. ·. . ... : . ~ •, . ... . . . : • : I ... : •• , • \ .. . . • ,, .. ~" :: : :. · ~-'T.~'~j~~i _Rlpr_ap :.s.1.ope Protection Detail . . ·:·. '·. -: ·. ·. . . · .. ··: :: ...... . NOlTO SCAl.E NOTTO SCAl.E . . ···. . . . . . ·~ . ·._ . - Gravel &nor orfill.,fo bl'.c Typical Boulder Dry stack Deta11 -............ ·-··-·~-·"'--·l ..:.-. .... ·-~---···-·-· "• .·' • • • •' • •••I'•'•-•'' •'·-.J--.:..:. ..... ~) .•. :.:.• • .:-'·•: .·.:_,,•<o~.l. .. .--. ,:. ••· ·-•• ""'"''""""' ' .. \ ·. . .. ... ·. ' .. '. Sedirn~nt Trap .lns.tc;tlJ.?tfo.n Co11&1Nct •ptll~-.y o( rlptap, •~ow bal .. , w•Ulo• llld!or om /ooco {"10 do lab) ©@ • Sl<a-,., bc!a) or \\';tltlu Rip (3p 0< (lfo.slon i:oolrol bl•nkol ·.,. ... • '. '•I •' '• . . . ~ • -.... · ·.: .. Corrugating ~-"-'·~-10 ·-1.. . 16" max. 1,-~ _;7"-~--. 3'Mu. ,., Cl!T FUll/\OWS ALONG Tife CONTOUR. -' IRR f:GULA.Fl lTIES HI nfe SO!'-SURFACE CATCH RAJllWATERNID RETNll UM<:, FeR T ~-IZf:FI M'O SE.ED, ~·onosCALe Tracking ···.-.-....... _ _, ____ -::::--·~·.-.-; --.. -...... -.. --........................... . .. .......... , ........ ······•· .......... -.. ·····-"·-·· .. ~······· ..... ~ ............ , ····'·'-···--·-·----··· ··-·· .. ·: ··::: .. ·. • • • •• ._ • :. •.,<I :~.: :'.: .'/ .... ~·.: .· : , \ ... ,,; :. · ... · .. . , . : .. :, .. /ro.p~.~.II 9~9ckpile -Locat~d .:~elqw We fl Pad Burn llOTTO SOA!.E Topsoil Stockpife -Located Above \iVeH Pad NOT TO SC>.LE •• e • • Appendix C Stormwater Field Inspection Report Page 22 Stormwater Management Plan Compliance Inspection Form Slte!D/Nzme: 045-11297 I E\Jckett 12B·7RD Inspection Date: 10(3112007 Location: Sec 7 TZS R96W lnspectioo Type: li..dil¥ Land Use: Saaelgrass SI teType OtiJLead Inspector: John Ragan ~£,,..---__ t' Signature: Receiving Body of water/Distance/Direction: InspectorTitle: Starr Eny Sci D@w 12m! SE! Parachute Creek 3 32mi NE Stormwater Runorr Risk: ~ Current Weather: 60 clear Prior Veg Covei-(%): ~ In the past 24 hours has there been overland runoff due to a storm event? li2 Best Management Practice (BMP) Checklist BMP TYPE Erosion Control Jn Use Req'd YIN Y/N Required Action or Maintenance Earlh Berms Yes Yes Check Dams No No Culvert No Na Diversion Ditch No No Conveyance Channel No No Slope D<ain No No Rock Lined Ditch No No Mulches No No K>eotexliles No No Sediment Control In Use Req'd YIN YIN Required Action or Maintenance Sill Fence No No Vehicle Tracking Pad Yes Yes I Hay Bale No No Sediment Trap No No Sediment Basin No No straw Wattle No No GENERAL CONDITIONS General YIN/NA Comments Have repairs/additional BMP Issues been addressed since last inspection? NA 1 st ·inspection !Are there signs of sediment leaving the site? No !Are there signs of offsite tracking at access point? No !Are surface waters being Impacted by site runoff? No Pad Area Observations YIN/NA Comments !Are tanks, drums, and/or other chemicals (dry storage) present? Yes !Are these products covered or placed in secondary containment areas? Yes Is pad area gravelled (offsite tracking cootrol)? No Is access road graveled (off site soil tracking cootrol)? Yes Vegetation Checkllst (Erosion Reduction Control) YIN/NA Comments Has the site achieved 70% or prior vegetation coverage for stab;Jization? No s lhe ped area reseeded? No Ale there signs of vegetation regrowth? No Is reseeding needed? Yes I Compliance Status Location Location Done Done Yes0 Noo If checked Yes, this site has no Incidents requiring corrective action. This site ls in compliance with the permit to the best of the signer's knowledge <Y>d baief. Signature: ,)/ /'R--J-- Printed 21812010 Page 1 of65 Page 23 • • I • Appendix D Site Map Page 24 • •• • Append i x C Stormwater Field Inspection Report Stormwater Management Plan Compliance Inspection Form Slte!D/Name : 045-11297 I Bickett 128-ZRD Insp ect ion Date : 10 /31(20 07 Location : Sec 7 T?S R96W Inspector ; Jobn Ragan Inspection Typ e: li...da¥ SiteType O!iJLEild Si gnatu re: ,11£-,,-Land Use : Sage/grass Receiving Body of water/Distance/Direction : Inspe ctorntle: Staff Env Sci Draw 12ml SE/ !'ioracbute Creek 3.32mi NE Stormwater Runoff Risk : Mea Current Weather : 60 clear Prior Veg Cov er (%):~ In the past 24 hours. has there been ove rland runoff due t o a stonm ev ent7 N.o Best Management Pract ice (BMP) Checklist BMP TYPE Erosion Control In Use Req'd YIN YIN Required Action or Maintenance Earth Berms Yes Yes Check Dams No No Culvert No No Diversion Di tch No No Cooveyance Channel No No Slope Dra in No No Rock Lined Ditch No No Mu lches No No G eotextiles No No Sediment Conlrol In Use Req'd YIN YIN Required Action or Malnlen ance !Silt Fence No No !Veh ic le Tracking Pad Yes Y es Hay Bale No No !S ediment Trap No No !Sediment Basin No No !Straw Wattle No No GENERAL CONDITIONS General YIN /NA Comments Have repa irs/addi tional BMP issues been addressed since last Inspection? NA 1st in sp ection .Ale there signs or sediment leaving lhe sile? No .Ale there signs or offsite tracking at access poi nt? No Are surface waters being Impacted by site runoff? No Pad Area Observations YIN /NA Comments Are tan k s , drums, and/or other che mi cals (dry storage ) present? Yes Ive the se produc ts covered or placed in secondary containment areas? Yes Is pad area grave ll ed (off site tracki ng con lrol )? No Is access road graveled (off site soi l tra ck ing cootrol)? Ye s Vegetation Checklist (Erosion Reduction Control) YIN/NA Comments Has the site achieved 70% Cf pria-veg eta lion cov erage for st abilization ? No Is the pad area rese eded ? No ~e !here signs ol vegetation regrowth ? No Is re seeding needed? Ye s I Compliance Status Location Location Done Done Yes i;a Noo If checked Yes, this site has no inciden ts requi rin9 corrective action. This si te Is In compl ian ce with the permit to th e b es t of !he si gner's kno;\ledge <nd bel ief. Sig nature: /!4-- Printed 2/812010 Page 1 of 65 • • I • Appendix D Site Map • ••• Lay Down Yard • • Petroleum Development Corporation Stormwater Management Plan Petroleum Development Corporation Lay Down Yard Garfield County Colorado General Permit No . COR-03F857 Prepared for: Petroleum Development Corporation 177 Sherman Street Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80203 Prepared by : ASSOCIATES Olsson Associates 826 21 % Road Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 I Lay Down Ya rd Petro leum Deve lopment Corporat ion TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 Stormwater Runoff Permitting Requirements .................................................... 1 Project Description ............................................................................................ 1 Project Owner and Operator ............................................................................. 1 1 CONSTRUCTION SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................... 3 1. a Nature of Construction Act ivity ................................................................ 3 1. b Proposed Sequence for Major Activities .................................................. 3 1. c Estimates of Site Acreages ..................................................................... 3 1. d Soil Data and Erosion Potential ............................................................... 5 1. e Existing Vegetation Description ............................................................... 8 1. f Potential Pollution Sources ...................................................................... 8 1. g Anticipated allowable non-stormwater discharges ................................... 9 1. h Receiving waters ...................................................................................... 9 2 SITE MAP .................................................................................................. 9 2. a Construction Site Boundaries .................................................................. 9 2. b Areas of Ground Disturbance .................................................................. 9 2. c Areas of cut and fill .................................................................................. 9 2 . d Storage Areas ......................................................................................... 9 2. e Location of Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants ...................................... 9 2 . f Locations of Structural BMPs .................................................................. 9 2. g Locations of Non-Structural BMPs .......................................................... 9 2. h Locations of Springs , Wetlands and Other Surface Waters .................... 9 3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ....................................... 10 3 . a SWMP Administrator ............................................................................. 10 3.b Identification of Potential Pollutant Sources .......................................... 10 3 .c BMPs for StormWater Pollution Prevention ........................................... 10 3.c.1 Structural Practices ............................................................................ 10 3 .c .2 Non-Structural Practices .................................................................... 10 3.c .3 Phased BMP installation .................................................................... 11 3 .c.4 Materials Handling and Spill Prevention ............................................. 11 3.c.5 Dedicated Concrete or Asphalt Batch Plants ..................................... 12 3.c.6 Vehicle Tracking Control .................................................................... 12 3 .c.7 Waste Management and Disposal including Concrete Washout ........ 12 3.c.8 Groundwater and Stormwater Dewatering ......................................... 12 4 FINAL STABILIZATION AND LONG TERM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 13 5 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE. ....................................................... 13 ii • e ------- Lay Down Yard Figu re 1 Table 1 Append ix A Append ix B Append ix C Append ix D • • Petroleu m Dev el opmen t Co rpo ration LIST OF FIGURES Location LIST OF TABLES Approved Seed Mixtures LIST OF APPENDICES Lay Down Yard Stormwater Perm it COR-03F857 BMP Installation and Selection Guid e Sto rmwater Inspection Fo r m Site Map iii ------ Lay Down Yard PDC INTRODUCTION This Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) is written to comply w ith the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's (CDPHE) General Permit No. COR- issued on May 31 51 , 2007(expires on June 30, 2012) and related U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater regulations. This SWMP addresses construction activities associated with the construction of the Lay Down Yard for Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC). A copy of this permit can be found in Appendix A. This SWMP is intended to be revised as necessary to address planned developments, new disturbances, and other changes needed to manage stormwater and protect surface water quality. Stormwater Runoff Permitting Requirements The Federal Clean Water Act [Section 402(p)] requires that discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S . from any point source be regulated by NPDES permits . In November 1990 the EPA published final regulations that established application requirements for stormwater associated with construction activity for soil disturbances of 5 acres or more be regulated as an industrial activity and covered by an NPDES permit. In December 1999 the EPA published fina l Phase II NPDES regulations that established application requirements for stormwater associated with construction activity for soil disturbances to be regulated as an industrial activity and covered by an NPDES permit. These regulations became effective July 1, 2002. On June 30, 2005, Colorado stormwater regulations went into effect to require Colorado Discharge Permit System (CPDS) permits for stormwater discharges from construction activities for (1 acre or greater) oil and gas activities . Federal permit coverage for these discharges was conditionally exempted from the Federal Clean Water Act by the 2005 Federal Energy Bill. On February 1, 2006, the CDPHE issued a letter clarifying that the CDPHE Water Quality Control Commiss ion decided to maintain the existing requirements for stormwater permitting for oil and gas construction sites greater than 1 acre . Project Description The Lay Down Yard is located in located in the NW/4 of the NW/4 of Section 28, Township 6 South , Range 96 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The proposed facility is located approximately 4 miles north of the Town of Parachute at an elevation of approximately 5,500 feet. The facility w ill be accessed via Garfield County Road 215 north of the Town of Parachute and then directly off the roadway via a right of way. The current development plan includes Lay Down Yard construction and access road improvemenl/construction . The total area of site including the yard and access road will be 10 acres. Total disturbed area is approximately 5 acres . Project Owner and Operator The property owner is Puckett Land Company and the operator is Petroleum Development Corporation . • • • Lay Down Yard Their address is : Petroleum Development Corporation 177 Sherman Street Sui te 3000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: The legal contact is : Scott Reasoner 1775 Sherman Street Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone : 304/860-5800 The local contact persons and stormwater admin istrator for the project is: Nathan Anderson District Manager Phone: 970/285-9606 ext. 5102 Email address: nanderson@petd .com Site Name and Location : PDC Lay Down Yard NW/4 of the NW/4 of Section 28, Townsh ip 6 South, Range 96 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado PDC will be in charge of all aspects of the property and this project. Contractor(s) will perform the actual construction, but all work will be superv ised by PDC and all decisions will be made by PDC. This SWMP will be revised as necessary to address new disturbances, construction or operation . Depending on the type and location of new facilities there may be a need for inclusion of new and different BMPs. In general, new development should be planned with consideration for stormwater quality (e.g. minimize disturbed area and maximize distance from surface water drainages, as practicable). · 1 CONSTRUCTION SITE DESCRIPTION The following sections describe the site location and provide a description of the construction area . Runoff characteristics of this area are also described. 1. a Nature of Construction Activity The facility is intended to provide PDC with areas for general storage and lay down of supplies, machinery, equipment or products . The relatively remote nature of PDC's operations necessitates the construction of this facility so that equipment and materials may be stored in a central location. The construction of a lay down yard at this location will minimize the need for materials to be transported to the area during times of inclement weather thereby increasing the safety of PDC's operations. The site will be constructed of native soils, and compacted as needed. The surface will be covered with no less than 6 inches of gravel to form a year-round working surface suitable for heavy truck traffic. The site will be graded so that all precipitation that falls on the location will drain to a retention pond in the northwest corner of the location . Diversion ditches will be installed along the perimeter of the site to control surface water. In areas that are disturbed by construction, topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled in such a manner as to be readily recovered for reclamation purposes . Soil materials will be managed so that erosion and sediment transport are minimized. The stockpiles will be located away from the flow of natural drainages. Stockpiles will not have greater than 3: 1 side slopes and a height of three to six feet. A single structure (in the form of a lean-to), designed to prevent exposure to the elements and accommodate long term storage of equipment, is also proposed for construction. The final location for the lean-to has yet to be determined but it will adhere to the County's set back restrictions. The perimeter of the location will also be fenced to prohibit access to the facility by livestock and wildlife. The fence will consist of an 8' chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire on top with 24' gates required for access. The Lay Down Yard is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural fields and desert shrubland with a grass/forb understory: • Irrigated pastures/Agricultural land • Low Elevation Salt-Desert Scrub • Greasewood and Rabbitbrush • Pinyan-Juniper Woodland Vegetative cover surrounding the Lay Down Yard is 50-55%. Area precipitation amounts are about 12 inches per year in Parachute, Colorado (Western Regional Climate Center). , 1. b Proposed Sequence for Major Activities There are four major phases: 1) pre-disturbance planning and site preparation, 2) site stabilization during construction, 3) interim reclamation and monitoring, and 4) final reclamation and success monitoring. For new disturbances, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be installed prior to, during, and immediately following construction as practicable with consideration given to safety, access, and ground conditions (e .g. frozen ground) at the time of construction. Each phase is briefly discussed below. Pre-disturbance planning and site preparation The following items will be evaluated and/or inventoried . • Suitability of slopes steeper than 2: 1 for construction activities with special erosion control and slope stability measures as needed . e e • • Evaluation of true riparian/wetland areas for exclusion from construction disturbance vs . fringe areas that can be properly reclaimed w ithout long term damage to true wetlands and as agreed to by land owners. • Identify an appropriate buffer from intermittent and ephemeral streams. • Identify soil-mapping units of proposed d isturbed area; collect one soil sample for every soil series of the proposed disturbed areas, and comp lete soil physical and chemical analysis for topsoil stripping, stockpiling and replacement recommendations . Utilize a backhoe to co n struct a test pit that will facil itate review of soil profile(s) and collecting soil samples . A soil auge r and/or additional test pits will be utilized every 1.5 acres to confirm if any additional soil mapping units exist on any given well site. If so, additional soil sampling will be completed . Collect soil samples in 6-inch lifts or by horizon as determined by a qualified soil scientist. • Inventory any noxious weeds listed in the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (Colorado Department of Agriculture, 1996) and Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan (Garfield County Vegetation Management, 2000). • Prepare a preliminary list of BMPs to be utilized during construction and as a part of final reclamation efforts. A list of actual BMPs may be better defined immediately prior to completion of construction activities. • Prepare a preliminary sketch plan of fencing for proposed disturbance areas for rangelands . • List f ertilization, soil amendment, soil tillage, seed mixture, mulching methods (if deemed necessary by the reclamation consultant), and any other cultural practices to be used within defined vegetation zones. Site stabilization during construction Site stabilization during site construction consists of salvage of all usable topsoil and subsoil, vegetation of all topsoi l and subsoil stockpiles as soon as practical, and stabilization of disturbed areas to control erosion and provide protection for adjacent undisturbed areas from unnecessary degradation as soon as practical. The vegetation mix used for all site stabilization is listed as the Temporary Mix shown in Table 2.1. The purpose of this mix is to obtain a rapid revegetation that will minimize erosion . This seed is applied to all cu t and fill areas, subsoil and topsoil stockpiles and any other areas not needed for well drilling . The seed is not applied to the pad area . Interim reclamation and monitoring Interim reclamation involves the reclamation of those areas disturbed during site construction , but not needed during the life of the Lay Down Yard. These items consist of final grading, relieving of compaction , subsoil and t opsoil replacement, seeding, mulching and fence installation to prevent future activity on the interim reclamation areas. Interim reclamation may also include the access road lead ing to Lay Down Yard . Interim sites will be monitored for reclamation success on an annual basis . Subject to landowner approval , seeding will be done with either the bottom land mix or the pinyon-juniper mix to establish ground cover. These mixes are provided in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. Interim reclamation shall occur no later than 3 months on crop land and 12 months on non-crop land and will last for the life of the site . Interim reclamation is done with the intent of final reclamation although parts of the site may require re-contouring of the interim areas after the site has ended its life. An example of th is is a pad that has cul/fill areas that are re-graded and reclaimed after the well is finished . Final reclamation and success monitoring Final reclamation includes the removal of all remaining equipment, tanks and structures at the site, final backfilling and full reclamation of those disturbed areas not recla imed for interim reclamation . The same reclamation procedures described for interim reclamation would be employed . The seed mixes for final reclamation are the same as those for interim reclamation (Tables 2 .2 and 2.3). Upon project completion, all disturbed areas except roads to be retained for other land uses would be reclaimed as designated by the landowner. Reclamation success monitoring involves assessing the status of reclaimed areas to ensure they meet desired site stability and productivity standards. Reclamation monitoring would be performed by a 3rd party consultant and would include an evaluation of plant cover, dens ity , and diversity as well as erosion and weed control. 1. c Estimates of Site Acreages The total permitted area of the Petroleum Development Corp. Lay Down Yard is 10 acres . The total disturbed area is approximately 5 acres. 1. d Soil Data and Erosion Potential Runoff characteristics are based on site topography , soil type , and soil/vegetative cover. The soil types in this permitted area along with native vegetation land cover are described below in the Lay Down Yard Soil Descriptions . The slopes range from 6 to 25% with steep rock outcroppings. Pre-d isturbance ground cover is about 50-55 percent. Stormwater runoff receiving waters include unnamed tributaries, Low Cost Creek and Parachute Creek. The ultimate receiving water is the Colorado River. PDC Lay Down Yard Soil Descriptions According to the NCRS, soil for the Lay Down Yard consists of the following soil types: 46-Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation : 5,000 to 6,500 feet Map Unit Composition Nihil/ and similar soils: 85 percent Description of Nihill Setting Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature : More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6 .00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 4 .0 mmhoslcm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Ecological site : Rolling Loam (R048AY298CO) Typical profile 0 to 11 inches : Channery loam 11 to 18 inches: Very channery loam • e • • 18 to 60 inches : Stratified ex tremely channe ry sandy loam to extremely channery loam 47-Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation : 5,000 to 6,500 feet Map Unit Composition Nihill and similar soils: 85 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Description of Nihill Setting Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Convex , linear Across-slope shape : Convex, linear Parent material: Alluvium derived f rom sands tone and sha le Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit w ater (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0 .60 to 6 .00 in/hr) Depth to water table : More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding : None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 perce nt Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Ma x imum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly sal ine (0 .0 to 4 .0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e Ecological site : Rolling Loam (R048AY298CO ) Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Channery loam 11 to 18 inches : Very channery loam 18 to 60 inches : Stratified extremely channery sandy loam to extremely channery loam 62-Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5 ,800 to 8,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Rock outcrop : 65 percent Torriorthents and similar soils: 3 0 percent Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Landform: Hillslopes, escarpments, plateaus Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face Down-slope shape : Convex , concave Across-slope shape: Convex, concave Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Parent material: Very stony colluvium derived from calcareous shale Properties and qualities Slope: 50 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to paralith ic bedrock Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit w ater (Ksat): Very low to moderate ly high (0 .00 to 0 .20 in/hr} Available water capacity: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 8s Typical profile 0 to 60 inches: Unweathered bedrock Description of Torriorthents Setting Landform: Hillslopes, plateaus Landform position (two-dimensional): Shou lder Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape : Convex Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous shale Properties and qualities Slope: 50 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature : 4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ks at): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0 .20 in/hr) Depth to water table : More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding : None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, ma ximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2 .0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (non irrigated): 8e Typical profile Oto 4 inches: Variable 4 to 30 inches: Fine sandy loam 30 to 34 inches: Unweathered bedrock 65-Torrifluvents, nearly level Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Mean annual precipitation : 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Frost-free period: 90 to 120 days Map Unit Composition Torrifluvents and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Torrifluvents Setting Landform: Distributaries, rivers , flood plains Down-slope shape : Linear, convex Across-slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature : More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0 .60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table : About 12 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding : Occasional · Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to sl ightly saline (2 .0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 2 .0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7w Typical profile 0 to 36 inches : Loam 36 to 60 inches: Sand • • Minor Components Wann Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Fluvaquents Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes Custom Soil Resource Report 15 1. e Existing Vegetation Description • The Lay Down Yard is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural fields and desert shrubland with a grass/forb understory: • Irrigated pastures/Agricultural land • Low Elevation Salt-Desert Scrub • Greasewood and Rabbitbrush • Pinyan-Juniper Woodland Vegetative cover surrounding the Lay Down Yard is 50-55%. Area precipitation amounts are about 12 inches per year in Parachute, Colorado (Western Regional Climate Center). 1. f Potential Pollution Sources For an accurate location and listing of potential pollutants please refer to the site specific inspection forms. The following paragraphs list the possible pollutants. Potential pollution sources associated with construction sites include: • Sediment resulting from erosion of soil stockpiles and other areas cleared of vegetation; • Sediment discharges from vehicle tracking; • Leakage of fuels and lubricants from equipmen t and spills from fueling ; • Trash and debris from clearing activities, construction materials, and workers and; • Leakage or spills from storage tanks and process equipment associated with the natural gas development activities. The most common source of pollution from pad and access road construction is sediment, which can be carried away from the work site with stormwater runoff and impact the water quality of a receiving stream . Clearing, grading , and otherwise altering previously undisturbed land can increase the rate of soil erosion over pre-disturbance rates. Petroleum products can also be potential stormwater pollutants . These products are used in construction activities to power or lubricate equipment and include : fuel, gear oil, hydraulic oil, brake fluid, and grease. Debris from lay down areas, residue from equipment cleaning and maintenance, and solid waste generated from land clearing operations and human activity (trees, brush, paper, trash, etc .) present other potential pollution sources within the construction site. Additionally, one or more facilities may contain construction supplies such as various sized pipe, culverts, metal sheds, empty tanks, drums and vessels , fencing and stairs. Construction of new facilities may require the use of concrete. Concrete wash out waters will be managed to prevent them from reaching waters of the state. Typically , concrete wash out waters will be contained in earthen impoundment to capture and evaporate wash out water. This water will not be allowed to leave the site as runoff. Magnesium chloride solution or other chemical dust suppressants may be applied during the summer to the unpaved access road in order to reduce fugitive dust generation . Magnesium chloride solution is used in the winter for roadway deicing and in the summer for dust suppression by county and state government entities. The solution is typically delivered to the site by contractors in Department of Transportation (DOT) approved tanker trailers and generally is quickly applied to the road surface . Occasionally , depending on work site conditions, the tanker trailers may be staged along the road until ready for application (typically no longer than overnight). Response to certain events may require specialized training due to health and safety concerns . For a list of MSDS inventory used during construction/storage activities please refer to onsite MSDS sheets. 1. g Anticipated allowable non-stormwater discharges Non-stormwater discharges are not expected from the construction projects. Possible exceptions include fire prevention/suppression or dust control activities. If there are any uncontaminated springs located within the construction sites, they will be listed on the site specific maps . Landscape irrigation return flow, construction dewatering, and concrete washouts are slated to be a part of this operation. If these are encountered, they will be noted in the SWMP and on the site ~pecific maps . Construction dewatering will also be covered under the appropriate permitting if found . 1. h Receiving waters Unnamed tributaries, Low Cost Ditch, Parachute Cree and the Colorado River. 2 SITE MAP For a copy of the overall site map, please refer to Appendix C 2. a Construction Site Boundaries For an accurate description of the construction site boundaries, please refer to the site specific map . 2 . b Areas of Ground Disturbance For an accurate description of the areas of disturbance, please refer to the site spec ific map . 2~ c Areas of cut and fill For an accurate description of the areas of cut and fill, please refe r to the site specific map . 2. d Storage Areas For an accurate description of the storage areas, please refer to the site specific map. 2. e Location of Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants There will be no asphalt or concrete batch plants located within the permitted area . 2. f Locations of Structural BMPs For an accurate descript ion of the location of structural BMPs, please refer to the site specific map. 2. g Locations of Non-Structural BMPs For an accurate description of the location of non-structural BMPs , please refer to the site specific map. 2. h Locations of Springs, Wetlands and Other Surface Waters For an accurate description of the location of springs , wetlands, and other surface waters , please refer to the site specific map . • • • 3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 3. a SWMP Administrator The SWMP Adm inistrator for the Petroleum Developmen t Corporation Lay Down Yard is : Eric R. Stearns P.O . Box 26 120 Genesis Blvd . Bridgeport , WV 26330 Phone : 304/842-6256 3.b Identification of Potential Pollutant Sources 1) all disturbed and stored soils will be evaluated for eros ion potential and potential to contribute to stormwater pollution and BMPs to prevent such occurrence w ill be implemented on a case by case basis . 2) veh icle tracking of sediments will be evaluated for erosion and pollution potential. BMPs w ill be chosen according to the potentials on a case by case basis. 3) management of contaminated soils will be done by conta inment immediately and managing them at an appropriate faci lity. 4) load ing and unload ing operations will be evaluated and identified for potential for pollution. The following is the procedure for dealing with liquid loading and unloading procedures; 5) outdoor storage activities will be evaluated for potent ial to pollute Stormwater runoff. Approp r iate BMPs will be implemented on a case by case basis. Containment and prevent ion of contact with stormwater will be achieved by keeping materials with potential for pollution covered or enclosed in containers or packaging . 6) vehicle and equipment maintenance and fueling procedures require the operators to ensure that no fluids or materials are spilled . If they are spi ll ed, they will be immediately contained and disposed of at an appropriate disposal facility. 7) significant dust or particulate generating processes will be evaluated and regulated by the application of water to eliminate possible wind erosion or transport. 8) routine maintenance activities involving fertilizers, pest icides , detergents , fuels, solvents , & oils will be very infrequent. When apply ing pesticides or herbicides , wind and moisture conditions will be evaluated and if either are found to be present and could possibly lead to contam ination, such procedures will be delayed and attempted again when conditions are conducive to application w ithout elevated pollution possibilities. 9) on-site waste management practices (waste piles , liquid wastes , dumpsters , etc.) will be enacted on al l sites. Trash receptacles will be located on all active sites. Good housekeeping principles will be enacted throughout the ent ire permitted area . Disposal will be by contractors with appropriate handling equipment. 10) concrete truck/eq ui pment washing, including the co ncrete truck chute and associated fixtures and equipment will be infrequent within the permitted area . T hese procedures are covered under the permit. If washing of concrete trucks and equipment takes place , t he water w ill be conta ined in an earthen basin . The location will be noted on site specific maps . 11) dedicated asphalt and concrete batch plants w ill not be present within the permitted area . 12) non -industrial waste sources such as worker trash and portable toilets will be contained in receptacles designed for the specific purpose . These will be disposed of by contractors with specially designed equipment and dispose of accord ing to local requirements at appropriate facilities . 13) other areas or procedures where potential spills can occur will be evaluated on a case by case basis and BMP's will be implemented according to the specific potential fo r pollution. 3.c BMPs for Stormwater Pollution Prevention 3.c .1 Structural Practices The description and application practices of structural p ractices available and/or implemented can be found in the BMP manual. The location of structura l BMPs will be found in the site specific maps. 3.c.2 Non-Structural Practices The description and application pract ices of non -structu ral BMPs available and/or implemented will be found in the BMP manual. The location of non-structural pract ices w ill be found in the site specific maps. 3.c.3 Phased BMP installation Preconstruction BMPs will include a down gradient perimeter BMP (wattle), with a slash pile inside. A diversion trench will be inside the slash pile, creating diversion to direct runoff to the designated point for control. BMPs for the actual construction phase will consist of grading and stabilization through surface roughening. The pad surface will be an improved unpaved surface to reduce tracking and sediment migration . Sediment traps will be located on the three down gradient corners to treat runoff water prior to leaving the site . A culvert will be placed at the access point to the pad. A run-on diversion trench will be located on the up- gradient side of the pad to reduce the amount of runoff from the site. Where appropriate, check dams will be placed in diversion trenches to reduce velocity and sediment migration. If necessary, armored rundowns will be utilized to transport runoff from the top of slopes to the base of slopes. A pad perimeter BMP consisting of a berm will be implemented at the top of fill slopes . Interim reclamation BMPs will consist of any of the following, seeding and straw crimping, hydromulching, drill seeding, seeding with blanketing. These will be determined by the actual slopes present once the construction has been completed. Final reclamation BMPs will consist of recontouring the site to as close to original slopes . Seeding and revegetation to a 70% distribution of original density will take place, prior to being released from the CDPHE regulatory compliance . 3.c.4 Materials Handling and Spill Prevention Fuels and Materials Management Petroleum products which may be present at the construction site include: gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricant oils, hydraulic oils, used oils, and solvents. Gasoline and diesel fuel will be stored in portable storage tanks with secondary containment. Lubricant , hydraulic, and miscellaneous oils and solvents will be stored in 55- gallon or smaller containers . Pollutants from petroleum products used during construction activities adhere easily to soil particles and other surfaces. In case of a spill or leak, soils contaminated with petroleum products will be contained and removed to a proper disposal site. Proposed soil erosion and sediment control practices will aid in retention of spills or leaks . Use of secondary containment and drip pans w ill reduce the likelihood of spills or leaks contacting the ground. Proposed maintenance and safe storage practices will reduce the chance of petroleum products contaminating the road site. Oily wastes such as crankcase oil, cans, rags, and paper containing oils will be placed in proper receptacles and disposed of or recycled. An additional source of petroleum contamination is leaks from equipment and vehicles. Routine daily inspections will be conducted to identify leaks and initiate corrective actions, if needed. The following guidelines for storing and managing petroleum products will be used : • All product containers will be clearly labeled . • Drums will be kept off the ground within secondary containment and stored under cover if needed. • Fuel tanks will be stored within secondary containment. • Lids of drummed materials will be securely fastened. • Emergency spill response procedures will be available on-site . Persons trained in handling spills will be on call at all times . • Spill cleanup and containment materials (absorbent, shovels, etc.) will be easily accessible . Spills will be immediately cleaned up and contaminated materials will be properly stored on site until they can be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations . • Storage areas and containers will be regularly monitored for leaks and repaired or replaced as necessary. Contractors and subcontractors should be reminded about proper storage, handling and transferring of petroleum products or other hazardous materials during safety meetings . • • • • PDC's Hea lth and Environmental Regulatory Advisor (HES) will coordinate agencies reporting and statements. Spills or releases of any size that impact or threaten to impact any waters of the state , residence or occupied structure, livestock or public byway, shall be verbally reported to the CDPHE. If the spil l may reach waters of the state (which includes surface water, ground water and dry gullies or storm sewers leading to surface water). it must also be reported immediately to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) at 1-877-518-5608. Spills or releases of more than 25 gallons of refined petro leum crude oil products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, or derivatives of mineral, animal or vegetable oil shall be reported to the state of Colorado Division of Oil and Public Safety at (303) 318-8547 within 24 hours. A hazardous substance release in any amount which enters or threatens to enter waters of the state shall be reported to Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE). All spills, leaks, or overflows that result in the discharge of pollutants will be documented. Other Chemicals Products Management Additional materials will be used and stored on site for use in construction. These materials will be stored appropriately and managed to minimize spills and leaks . Storage areas will be regularly inspected and any minor spills or leaks will be cleaned up immediately. Materials Management The a Lay Down Yard will be maintained with good housekeeping and will be inspected on a regular basis for spills, leaks, and potential of materials commingling with stormwater runoff. 3.c.5 Dedicated Concrete or Asphalt Batch Plants There will be no dedicated Concrete or Asphalt batch plants within the permitted area. This SWMP will be amended if this changes in the future . 3.c.6 Vehicle Tracking Control Vehicle tracking control will be minimized by the construction of roads and travel areas by good engineering principles. Roads will be properly graded to control runoff and erosion . Road surfaces will be upgraded by the addition of gravel or roadbase being placed on the roadway surface. BMPs will be installed along roadways to control runoff and sediment. 3.c. 7 Waste Management and Disposal including Concrete Washout Waste Management and Disposal • Other wastes may include the following: o Sagebrush, shrubs and trees from clearing operations o Trash and debris from construction mate r ials and workers o Sanitary sewage. Each of these wastes will be managed so as to not contribute to stormwater pollution . Construction trash and debris will be collected in containers and hauled off-site for disposal in suitable landfills. Sanitary waste will be containerized in portable toilets or other storage t anks with waste materials regularly pumped and transported off-site for disposal at approved facilities . There will be no Concrete washout on the site. 3.c.8 Groundwater and Stormwater Dewaterlng Stormwater runoff will be separated from contamination and dewatering by divers ion and grading . The two will not be allowed to come in contact with each other. This is not anticipated at this time . If in the future dewatering of any kind takes place, the SWMP will be amended to reflect the changes. 4 FINAL STABILIZATION AND LONG TERM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Areas which have been disturbed are considered to be stabilized when a uniform vegetative cover with a density of 70 percent of the pre-disturbance levels has been established or when an equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction method is in-place. The disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched for final stabilization . Table 2 contains approved seed mixtures and distribution rates for the Lay Down Yard. Typical Pure Live Seed (PLS) application rates are recommended to be doubled if seeding is performed by hydroseed or broadcasting. Seed mixtures and application rates are also specified in Application to Drill documents and are based upon several factors including facility and well pad surrounding vegetation, soil types, elevation and surface relief. Areas not used for the access road and materials storage, or other work areas will be stabilized with vegetation . Areas that are stabilized with vegetation will be considered to have achieved final stabilization when a uniform stand of vegetation with a density of at least 70 percent of the pre-disturbance has been established. Sprayed on mulches and other slope stabilization materials may be used in combination with seeding techniques in select areas to promote and establish surface vegetation cover. Other areas which may include the access road, materials storage, and other work areas will be stabilized with the use of permanent, physical erosion reduction methods which include, but are not limited to: • Surface hardening -covering of the soil surface with hardened products such as concrete or asphalt pavement. • Surface covering -covering of the surface soil with structure that inhibits contact of precipitation with the soil surface which is generally considered to be placement of a structure (building or tank) over the soil surface. • Gravel surfacing -gravel surfacing will be applied in areas such as access roads, materials storage yards, and other work surfaces. Some gravel may be lost due to erosion from intense precipitation events or due to vehicle traffic. Gravel surfaces will be periodically inspected to determine the need for gravel replacement. Gravel surfaces will be replaced or repaired (through grading) when inspection reveals that the gravel surface is no longer effectively covering the soil surface. 5 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE To meet requirements of Stormwater General Permit No. COR-03, inspection and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls must occur during the construction project. Continued inspection and maintenance is required for specific structures after construction is completed . A complete list of active inspection locations, site diagrams and site specific stormwater BMPs are provided in the inspection report book kept with the SWMP . Inspections will occur at least once every 14 calendar days and after a precipitation event or snowmelt events that cause surface erosion . The inspection of stormwater BMPs serves as a preventative maintenance plan for the control devices and practices designed to prevent and minimize the pollution of state waters . The inspections procedures will document the following items; 1) The inspection date; 2) Name(s) and title(s) of personnel making the inspection; 3) Location(s) of discharges of sediment or other pollutants from the site; 4) Location(s) of BMPs that need to be maintained; 5) Location(s) of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or proved inadequate for a particular location; 6) Location(s) where additional BMPs are needed, that were not in place at the time of inspection; 7) Deviations from the minimum inspection schedule as provided in Section C.6.a above; 8) Description of corrective action for items 3, 4, 5, and 6, above, dates corrective action(s) taken, and measures taken to prevent future violations, including requisite changes to the SWMP, as necessary; and • • • 9) After adequate corrective action(s) has been taken , or where a report does not identify any incidents requiring corrective action, the report shall contain a signed statement indicating the site is in compliance with the permit to the best of the signer's knowledge and belief. Permanently stabilized areas will be inspected at least once per month. A log of inspections will be completed and maintained at the Rifle, Colorado office for a minimum of three years . Inspections are not required for disturbed areas when snow cover exists over the ent ire site for an extended period as long as melting conditions do not exist. Part l.D.6(a)(3) Snow cover conditions where there is no risk of surface erosion can exist at high elevations within the Colorado mountains during some periods of the year. It is not necessary for inspections to be conducted during these periods . (taken from Public response 5/31/07) Water quality will be visually assessed for all receiving streams and discharge areas during each inspection if present. Disturbed areas and material storage areas that are exposed to precipitation will be inspected for evidence of pollutants entering nearby drainages . Check dams, wattles, and other BMPs will be inspected for evidence of deterioration, under-cutting, and build up of sediment. Sediment will be removed when it has built up one-third to one-half the height of the hay bales or wattles . Roads used for vehicle access will be inspected for evidence of off-site sediment transport. For maintenance procedures of BMPs, please refer to the BMP manual. This w ill also show criteria for maintenance . The SWMP will be modified as necessary whenever there is a change in design, construction or operation that changes the potential for pollutant discharge to waters of the state . An inspection report summarizing the scope of the inspection, the name of the person conducting the inspection, date of inspection, and observations relating to the implementation will be prepared. An inspection report is provided in Appendix B. Actions taken to modify stormwater control measures will be recorded and maintained with the SWMP . If no deficiencies are found during the inspection, the report contains a certification statement that the site is in compliance with the SWMP and the General Permit. Personnel performing site inspections will record site conditions on the Stormwater Field Inspection Report form in Appendix B. When deficiencies are discovered, the PDC Stormwater Administrator will be contacted and will direct designated subcontractors to perform BMP maintenance or replacement. Maintenance will include prompt adjustments and repairs to erosion and sediment control structures that are found to be performing inadequately or deteriorating . Signs of rill or gully surface erosion shall be immediately repaired. The PDC Stormwater Administrator has the authority and will direct subcontractors to install new and or additional stormwater control BMPs as needed. • --~ ) ;;~~\ '· (' ,.. ~ .. " ; 't ' .. \ r J \ i .. 't.1 / c:J Site Lo ca tio n LJ Parcels County Roads Q 217129100005 (Area: 350 acres) -Parachute , CO PAO JECT NO· ORA~Ml BY. DATE. (09-200 1 Lu i;. Sooil G I SAnal ~ 10116.09 VICINITY MAP LAYDOWN YA RD PETROLEUM DEVE LOPMENT CO GAR FIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ' :,i• ~~ '- \ •. • 1 inch equals 0.8 m iles O\oLSSON ASSOCIATES aw 2 1·1'2 ROAD GRANO J UNCTIO N. C081505 TEL 970.263. 7800 FAX 9 70.WJ.7456 FlGURE SEED MIXTURES Tables 1.1 thru 1.3 have been created based on those species that have performed the best in the last fom years ofreclamation effo1ts by PDC. TABLE 1.1 TEMPORARY SEED MIX COMMON NAME Graminoids Thickspike Wheatgrass Smooth Brome Sideoats Grama Russian Wildrye Totals SPECIES NAME Aqropyron dasvstachyum Bromis inermis Bouteloua curtipendu/a Elymus junceus note: rates proposed are for drill seeding , broadcast rate 2x TABLE 1.2 BOTTOMLAND SEED MIX COMMON NAME Graminoids Tall Wheatgrass Western Wheatgrass Russian Wildrye Switchgrass Alkali Sacaton Forbs Scarlet Globemallow Shrubs Black Greasewood Totals SPECIES NAME Agrypyron elongatum Agropyron smithii Elymus junceus Panicum virgatum S1Jorobolus airoides Sphaeralcea coccinea Sarcobatus vermiculatus note: rates proposed are for drill seeding, broadcast rate 2x •• VARIETY Critana Lincoln Butte Vanall, Bozoisky- select VARIETY Alkar, Jose Arriba Vanall, Bozoisky- select Paloma ARS 2936 • SEED SEEDS/ RATE SEEDS/LB SOFT lbs (pls)/ac 160,000 9 2.45 145,000 13 3.91 190,000 10 2 .29 170,000 8 2 .05 40 10.70 SEED SEEDS/ RATE SEEDS/LB SOFT lbs (pls)/ac 80,000 6 3.27 125,000 6 2.09 170,000 8 2.05 160,000 6 1.63 1,750,000 8 0 .20 500,000 4 0 .35 250 ,000 2 0.35 40 9.94 TABLE 1.3 PINYON- JUNIPER SEED MIX COMMON NAME Graminoids Western Wheatgrass Thickspike Wheatmass Russian Wildrye Galleta Indian Ricegrass Forbs Small Burnet Shrubs BiQ SaQebrush Totals SPECIES NAME Agropyron smithii Aqroovron dasvstachvum Elymus junceus Hilaria jamesii Oryzopsis hymenoides Sanquisorba minor Artemisia tridentata note: rates proposed are for drill seeding, broadcast rate 2x SEED SEEDS/ RATE VARIETY SEEDS/LB SQFT lbs (pls)/ac Arriba 125,000 6 2 .09 Critana 160,000 8 2.18 Vanall , Bozoisky-170,000 7 1.79 select Viva 160,000 10 2.72 Paloma 155,000 6 1.69 Delar 50,000 2 1.74 Hobble creek 2 ,500,000 1 0.02 40 12.23 LS8:1 £0-~0:> 'ON l!WJad 1eJaUaD JaleMWJOlS v x1puaddV • • STATE OF COLORADO Bill Riller, Jr., Governor Martha E. Rudolph, Execulive Direclor Dedlcaled lo protecti ng and Improving the heal th and environme nt of the .peop le ol C-Olorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S . Laboratory Services Divis ion Deriver, Colorado 60246-1530 6100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Col orado 80230·6928 TDD Line (303) 691·7700 (303) 692~090 Located In Glendale, Colorado htlp://www.cdphe.state .co .us December 29, 2009 Scott Reasoner, VP Petroleum Development 1775 Sherman St Ste 3000 Denver, CO . 80203 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment RE: Certllicallon, Colorado Discharge Permit System Permit No., COR030000, Certification Number: COR03F857 Dear Mr ./Ms . Reas·oner; The Wat~i· Qunlity Control Division (the Divi sion) has re viewed the application subm itted for the Petroleum Development Lay Down Yat'd facility and de teimined that it qualifies for coverage under the COPS General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Cons!luction (the permit). Enclo sed please find a copy of the permit certification, which was issu ed under the Colorado Water Qu ality Control Act. · Facility: Petroleum Development Lay DownYard Legal Contact: Scott Reasoner, VP Facil ity Contact: Adell Heneghan, Env Field Coordinator Garfield County Phoi1e number : 303-860-5800 E.mai!: este arns@petd .com Phone number : 970-285~9606xS110 Email: ahen eghan@petd .com Scott Reasoner, is the legal contact for this ce1tification , as shown nbove. The legal contact receives all legal documentation pertnining to the pennit certification, including invoices. Adell Heneghan is the loc al conta ct as Jlsted above. This entity will be cont acted for general inquiries regarding the facility. The Annual Fee for this ·certification is $245 .90 is invoiced every July. Do Not Pay This Now. The init ial prorated invoi ce will be. sent to the . legal contact sl_iort.ly . · · · ·· Please read the enclosed permit and certificatipn . If you have any questions please contact Kathy Ro sow, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (303) 692-3521. · Sincerely, ~ Debbie Jessop, Program Assistant WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Enclosures: Certifica tion page; General Permit; Highlight Sheel;.Tennin.at ion form xc: Regional Councii ofGovemmcnt Garfield County, Local County Health Department D .E,, Technical Services Unit, WQCD Pcnnit Filo cert /dkj • • apin~ UO!J::>a1as pue UO!Je11eJsu1 dl/\l8 a X!puadd\f • • • INTEGRATED VEGETATION AND NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSED PDC LA YDOWN YARD GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Cover Photo: Looking north at proposed laydown yard. Prepared for: Petroleum Development Corporation 1775 Sherman Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80203 Prepared by: Westwater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction , CO 81505 October 2009 • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), West Water Engin eerin g (WWE) has prepared an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan for a proposed laydown yard. The project si te is located 5.2 miles northwest of Parachute , Colorado in Sections 28 and 29, Township 6 South, Range 96 West (Figu re 1 ). The project area l ies within Garfield County, Colorado, and is located on private land . Access to the project area is currently available via County Road 215 to a private access road. The primary use of the site and surrounding area is natural gas extraction /development, livestock grazing, agricultural fields, and wildlife habitat. The general project area is currently undergoing natural gas develo pm e nt including the drilling of wells , and the construction of pipelines . 1.2 General Survey Information Mapped soil types , as publi shed by the Natural Re sources Conservation Service (NRCS), U .S . Department of Agricu lture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soi l ty p es and vegetation characteristics of the proposed laydown yard si te and surro undin g area (NRCS 2009) . Field inspect ions of the project area were conducted by WWE biologists on October 5 , 2009. WWE b iologists surveyed the area in and around th e proposed laydown yard site to identify vegetation communities and to search for , id entify , a nd map no x ious weed species. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants , aerial photography, and on-the-ground assessment of plant abundance visible during the survey. Id entification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field gu ide s (Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998 , Weber and Wittmann 2001). Photographs were taken of the general project location , vegetation , terrain, and other specific biolo g ical findings. Locations of weeds and other features included in this report were recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver using NAD83/WGS84 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 12 . 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2 .1 Vegetation Communities Vegetat ion communities around the project area hav e been disturbed by agriculture and natural gas development. Vegetation consists of a mixture of agr icultural fields and desert shrublands with a grass/forb understory . Pinon-juniper woodlands are widely scattered on slopes east and west of the project area. Pinon-juniper woodlands a re dominated by Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and occasional pinon pine (Pinus edulis). Other vegetation observed in the area includes greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), rabb itbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflous), kochia (Ba ss ia prostrata), Russian thistle (Sa/sofa ssp .), downy brome (Bromus tectorum), annual wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). WestWater Engineering Page 3 of16 October 2009 Legend Fig ure 1 Petroleum Development Corp. Laydown Yard IVNWMP October 2009 :'-Nest~ter Engineering Cons.u g Eflg e & Sde Miles 0.03 0.06 0.12 • • 2.2 Soils Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed t o determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics of the project site and surrounding property (NRCS 2009). Nihill Channery loam is a well drained soil with 6-25 percent slopes and is the only soil type present at the proposed laydown yard site. 2.3 Terrain The project area lies along the eastern valley side of Parachute Creek. Terrain is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 5,400 ft. Irrigated pastures are adjacent to Parachute Creek and the project s ite. Steep slopes and low hills lie east and west of the project site and are bisected by several dry washes. 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that are aggressive competitors when non-native t o an area. Most have come from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established in a new environment, they tend to spread quickly because the insects , diseases , and animals that normally control them are absent. Noxi o us weeds are spread by man , animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the establi shment of noxious weeds include roadsides , construction sites, areas that are overused by animals or humans, wetlands , and r iparian corridors. Subsequent to soil disturbances, vegetatio n communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species . Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive , non-native species. Construction equipment traveling from weed-infested areas into weed-free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and propagates , resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed-free areas. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. Both the State of Colorado and Garfield County maintain a list of plants that are considered to be nox ious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed list includes three categories. List A species m ust be eradicated whenever detected. List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted. List C species are widespread , but the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds. The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of 21 plants from the State list considered to be noxious weeds within the county (see Appendix A). The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has duties to: 1. Develop a noxious weed list , 2. Develop a weed management plan for designated noxious weeds, and 3 . Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that identified landowners submit an integrated weed management plan for their propertie~. WestWater Engineering Page 7of 16 October 2009 3.2 Observations Two Colorado State listed weed species are found at the proposed laydown yard site, none of which are listed by Garfield County (Table I and Appendix A). No Colorado State B listed weeds were observed in the project area. Colorado State C listed weeds (two) observed in the project area were field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Jointed goatgrass, a Garfield County noxious weed, is present in isolated dense infestations along an adjacent pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) (Figure I). The ROW parallels the western edge of the laydown yard site. Jointed goatgrass was not observed at the laydown yard site during the survey; however the survey was conducted past the seeding stage for this species, the seed head is an identifying characteristic. The project site was primarily composed of common weed species that are not listed by the State of Colorado as noxious weeds. These species include: kochia (Bassia prostrata), Russian thistle (Sa/sofa spp .), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and annual wheatgrass (Eremopyrum triticeum). Heavy infestations of kochia and tumble mustard were observed throughout the proposed laydown yard site. Table 1. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Project Area Common Name* ··. Scientific Name USDA Plant Type General Location and Comments Symbol ... ···. Downy bromel,_, Found throughout project area. Bromus tectorum Annual BRTE Field bindweed'--Found in dense patches, but thinly Convolvulus arvensis Creeping Perennial scattered throughout project area. COAR4 Jointed Goatgrass" Found in isolated dense patches along an Aegilops cylindrical Annual existing pipeline ROW, along the western AECY side of the proposed laydown yard site. * Government weed listing: Bold -Garfield County, Colorado . Superscript -Colorado State B or C list. 3.3 Integrated Weed Management Control of invasive species is a difficult task. Care must be taken to prevent damage to desirable plant species during treatments to prevent further infestations by other pioneer invaders. Weed management is best achieved through a variety of methods over a long period of time including, inventory (surveys), direct treatments , prevention through best management practices, monitoring of treatment efficacy, and subsequent detection efforts . Weed management is often reserved to "control" of existing species and prevention of further infestations (existing and novel species) rather than eradication. After successful and effective management, decreases in WestWater Engineering Page 8of16 October 2009 e e • infestation size and density can be expected , and after several years of successful management practices , eradication is sometimes possible. 3.4 Prevention and Assessment of Noxious Weed Infestations Weed management is costly and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for practical treatment. Prevention is especially valuable in the case of noxious weed management. Several simple practices should be employed to preve nt most weed infestati ons. The following practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control through prevention. The practices include: • Prior to delivery to the site , equipment should be thoroughly cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds . • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil , equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed-bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain . • All maintenance vehicles should be regularly cleaned of soil. • A void driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist. Assessment of the existence and extent of noxious weeds for an area is essential for the development of an integrated management plan. This report provides an initial assessment of the occurrence of noxious weeds for the project area. In order to continue effective management of noxious weeds , further inventory and analysis is necessary to 1) determine t he effectiveness o f the past treatment strategies , 2) modify if necessary the treatment plan, and 3) detect early infestations of new species or locations and thus more economical treatments. 3 .5 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations Invasive and noxious weeds commonly occur along di tches, creek corridors and adjacent drainages (especially in riparian areas), abandoned fields , and disturbed are a s such as well pads , pipeline routes, and roadsides. It is recommended to continue monitoring the site to insure new infestations of noxious weeds do not establish at the la yd own yard location. Once an area has been cleared of vegetation and the soil has been upturned this increases the vulnerability of the site to invasion by noxious weeds. Noxious weeds establish in areas of disturbance due to the removal of competitors and the optimal conditions that are created by disturbing a si t e . If noxious weeds are found in the future at the laydown yard site it is important to know whether the target is an annual , biennial, or perennial to select strategies that effectively control and eliminate the target. Treatment strategies are different depending on plant type , which are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability to quickly develop immunity to herbicides , especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it imperative to use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration WestWater Engineering Page 9of16 October 2009 accprding to the product label. Most misuse is centered on excessive application, either in frequency or concentration. This results in mostly top kill and resistant phenotypes. Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds Target: Prevent Seed Production 1. Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity . If seeds develop, cut and bag seed heads. 2. Cut roots with a spade just below soil level. 3. Treat with herbicide in rosette or bolting stage , before flowering. 4 . Mow biennials after bolting stage, before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering but can reduce total seed production. (Sirota 2004) Table 4. Treatment Strategies for Perennials Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production 1. Allow plants to expend as much energy from root system as possible , do not treat when first emerging in spring, but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop , cut and bag if possible. 2. Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage or in the fall (recommended after August 15 when natural precipitation is present). In the fall, plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage. Herbicides will be drawn down to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of nutrients to roots rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time, another season of seed production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system . Spraying in fall (after middle August) will kill the following year's shoots, which are being formed on the roots at this time. 3. Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway; seed production should be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the re-growth is not as effective as spraying without mowing. Effect of mowing is species dependent; therefore , it is imperative to know the species and its basic biology. Timing of application must be done when biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient. 4. Tillage may or may not be effective. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only Yi'' -l" lon g. Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the weed patch. 5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very labor intensive because it must be done repeatedly. Figure 3 is an alternative schedule for life cycle and control of biennial thistles such as musk thistle. Other biennials (houndstongue and chicory) can be treated using the same timing. One additional control method is the cutting of rosettes, which can be done any time during the growth of the plant. WestWater Engineering Page 10of16 October 2009 • • • • Figure 3. Life Cycle and Management strategies for biennial thistles Herbicide · ~P.11c't1~~ Vear1 (Hartzler 2006 ) 3.6 Commercial Applicator Recommendations . Httb; . Ai>P~·· A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control effo1ts. Regulations may requ ire a Colorado licensed applicator. An appl icator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weed s . Reclamation fanning services using multiple seed bin range drills and specialized related equipment is available and should be used for reclamation seeding projects. Common chemical and trade names may be used in this report. The use of trade names is for clarity by the reader. Inclusion of a trade name does not imply endorsement of that particular brand of herbicide and exclusion does not imply non-approval. Cert ified commercial applicators will decide which herbicide to use and at what concentration according to label directions . Landowners using unrestricted products must obey all label warnings, cautions , and application concentrations . The author of this report is not responsible for inappropriate herbicide use by readers. 3 .7 Best Management Practices -Noxious Weeds Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts. The practices include : • top soil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil on the final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling; • in all cases , temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum; WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 16 October 2009 • equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and extent of soil compaction; • disturbances should be immediately reseeded with the recommended mix in the re- vegetation section; • topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive sterile hybrid grasses , if stored longer than one growing season; • prior to delivery to the site , equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds; and • if working in sites with weed-seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed-bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. In areas with slope greater than 3 percent, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope. When utilizing hydro-seeding followed by mulching, imprinting s hould be done prior to seeding unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting should be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the most simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed . Other simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the direction of slope . Herbicides: Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre-bud stage after germination or in the spring of the second year. The species identified in the survey are susceptible to commercially available herbicides. Selective herbicides are recommended to minimize damage to desirable grass. Herbicide use in any riparian zones should be restricted to formulations that are approved for such use. Non-selective aquatic glyphosate formulations (e .g., Rodeo®) can be used in riparian areas with little danger to the ground or surface water, but desired grasse s, forbs , shrubs and tre es are susceptible to damage by direct contact. Professionals or landowners using herbicides must use the concentration specified on the label of the container in hand. Herbicides generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Most herbicide failures observed by WWE are related to incomplete control caused by high concentrations killing top growth before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots through the nutrient trans location process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant if directed on the herbicide label or other adjuvants as called for on the herbicide label. G razing: Grazing should be deferred , in reclaimed areas, until the desired grass species are established . Mechanical: Mechanical control with a hand tool (shovel etc.) is ideal for situations where noxious weed infestations are low and visibility is good . Alternative Methods: An alternative method , particularly where there is poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF . These fungi , mostly of the genus Glomus , are symbiotic with about 80 percent of all vegetation. Endo-mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be helpful when reclaiming this project. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient transfer West Water Engineering Page 12of16 October 2009 • • • • capacity of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and Mccaslin 1995). Over-the-counter commercial products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when re- seeding and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting , come in powder form and are available from many different sources. Some also come in granular form to be spread with seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one species . All Co lorado State Forest Salida District tree and shrub plantings include the application of AMF. According to District Forester Crystal Tischler, "AMF is worth it" (Tischler 2006). Most, if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation re-vegetation/reseeding projects now require use of AMF and BioSol, a ce11ified by-product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primari ly of mycelium . Compacted soils respond well to fossilized humic substances and by - products called humates. These humates , including hum ic and fulvic acids and humin were formed from pre-historic plant and animal deposits and work especially well on compacted soils when applied as directed. 4.0 REVEGETATION -RECLAMATION 4.1 Project Area The project area is comprised of agricultural meadows , grass and desert shrub lands, and sparsely vegetated foothills. Successful reclamation of the project area is dependent upon soil type and texture, slope gradient and aspect, proper weed control , available water, and revegetation with suitable plant species. Based on the soil types, terrain, and the presence of nox ious weeds in the project area, successful reclamation is most likely if a seed mix of grasses and shrubs is used. The seed mix presented in Table 4 is recommended. The suggested seed mix is based on BLM recommendation for the e levation and vegetation type presently occurring in the project area (BLM 2008). For best results and success, the recommended grass mixture reseeding should be done in la t e a u tumn. The reseeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application (CNHP 1998). Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill with no soil preparation other than simple grading to slope and imprinting and waterbars where applicable. Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: • harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and re- harrow, preferably at a 90 degree angle to the first harrow; • hydro-seeding (most economical in terms of seed cost); and • hand raking and broadcast followed by re -raking at a 90 degree angle to the first raking. • These are not the only means of replanting the site. However, these methods have been observed to be effective in similar landscapes. After desired grasses are estab lished and control of target weed species is successful, then shrubs, forbs, and trees can be planted without concern for herbicide damage. Few native forb West Water Engineering Page 13of16 October 2009 seeds are available commercially as cultivars. Most are collected from natural populations. Native shrubs and forbs often do not establish well from seed, particularly when mixed with grasses . Past experience has shown that stabilizing the soil with grasses, accomplishing weed control, and then coming back to plant live, containerized woody species in copses has been the most cost effective method for establishing the woody species component of the plant community. For sites where soil disturbance will be temporary, grasses should be drilled after construction activities cease and the equipment is removed from the site. After two years of controlling weeds (with herbicides) and allowing the grasses to become established, forbs and woody species should be inter-seeded or hand-planted to increase the diversity and value of the reclamation plantings. 4.2 Reclamation Goals Interim and final reclamation measures shall be consistent with those outlined in the Colorado Oi l and Gas Conservation Commission's (COGCC) amended rules, effective April 1, 2009 (COGCC 2009). These regulations are expected to fulfill Garfield County's requirements for interim and final reclamation standards. WestWater Engineering Page 14ofl6 October 2009 e e Table 4. Suggested Seeding for Low-Elevation Salt-Desert Scrub/Basin Big Sagebrush Common Name Scientific Names Variety Season Form PLS lbs/acre* Plant Both of the Following (5% Each, 10% Total) Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex can escens VNS Shrub 2.5 Shadscale Atriplex confertifolia VNS Shrub 2.0 and Two of the Following (25% Each, 50% Total) • Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix VNS Cool Bunch 3.4 Streambank Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus , Sodar Cool Sod -forming 4 .2 Azrovvron riparium Bluebunch Wheatgrass Ps e udoroegneria spicata Secar Cool Bunch 4.7 and One of the Following (20% Total) Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum [Oryzopsis} hym enoides Paloma, Rimrock Cool Bunch 3.7 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii , Poa secunda VNS Cool Bunch 0 .6 and One of the Following (10% Total) Alkali Sacaton Sporobolus airoides VNS Warm Bunch 0.15 Salina Wildrye Ley mus salinus VNS Cool Bunch 1.0 and One of the Following (10% Total) e Galleta Ple uraphis [Hilaria} jamesii Viva floret s Warm Bunch /Sod-1.6 forming Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus VNS Warm Bunch 0.05 *Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill-seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or lt ydroseeded. WestWater Engineering Page 15of16 October 2009 5.0 REFERENCES Barrow, J. R., and Bobby D. McCaslin . 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid ecosystems. In: Barrow, J. R ., E . D . McArthur, R . E . Sosebee, and Tausch , R. J., comps. 1996. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General Technical Report, INT-GTR-338, Ogden, Utah: U .S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp. BLM. 2008. Revisions to BLM energy office revegetation requirements. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Glenwood Springs. CNHP. 1998. Native Plant Re-vegetation Guide for Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program , Caring for the Land Series, Vol. III, State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, 258 pp . COGCC. 2009. Amended Rules. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Department of Natural Resources. CWMA. 2007. S . Anthony, T. D'Amato, A . Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell , I. Schonle , K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition . Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Hartzler, Bob. 2006. Biennial Thistles of Iowa. ISU Extension Agronomy. URL : http://www. weeds.iastate .edu/mgmt/2 006/iowathist les. shtm 1 Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. · NRCS . 2009. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture , Natural Resource Conservation Service, URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Sirota, J. 2004. Best management practices for noxious weeds of Mesa County. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Tri River Area, Grand Junction , Colorado. URL: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/TRA/W eeds/weedmgmt.html State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 35-5-1-119, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture , Plant Indu stry Division , Denver, 78 pp . Tischler, Crystal. 2006. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, Salida. Personal communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. Weber, William A., and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Third Edition, University Press of Colorado , Boulder. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West -91h edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services , University of Wyoming, Laramie. WestWater Engineering • Page 16of16 • October 2009 • • • APPENDIX A Garfield County Noxious Weed List Species Common name Species Growth Life State "A" State "B" State Garfield Code Form 1 History2 List List "C" List List Acroptilon rep ens Russ ia n kn a pw ee d ACRE3 F p x x Aegilop s cylin drica Jointed goatgrass A ECY G A x x Arctium m in us Common (Lesser) burdock ARMI2 F 8 x x Cardaria draba Hoary cress , Whitetop CADR F p x x • Card uus acanthoides Spiny plumeles s thi stle CAAC F 8 , WA x x Carduus nutans Musk (Nodding plumeless) thistl e CANU4 F 8 x x Ce ntaurea diffus a Diffus e knapweed CEDI3 F p x x Ce nta ur ea mac ulos a Spotted knapweed CEMA4 F p x x Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthi stl e CES03 F A x x Ch rysanth emum Oxeye daisy CHLE80 F p x x le ucanth emum Ci ch or ium in tyb us Chicory CUN F p x x C irsium arvense Can a d a t h is tl e CIAR4 F p x x Cynoglossum officinale H o und stong ue, Gy p sytl ower CYOF F 8 x x Elae ag nus ang ustifolia Rus s ian olive ELAN T p x x E uphorbia esula Leafy s purge EVES F p x x Linaria dalmatica Da lm a tian toa dtlax, broad-leaved LIDA F p x x L inaria vuff?ari s Yellow toadtlax LIVU2 F p x x Ly thrum salic aria Purple loo s es trife LYSA2 F p x x • On opordu m acanthium Scotch thistl e ONAC F 8 x x Tam arix parviflora S m a lltlower t a mari s k TAPA4 T p x x Tamarix ramosissima Salt cedar, Tamari s k TARA T p x x I - G rowth fo rm : T = tree/shrub; F = fo rb /v in e ; G = gramin o id 2 -L i fe hi st ory: A = annual ; B =bienni a l; P = pe renn ia l; W A = win te r annu a l WestWater E ng ineering App e ndi x A October 2009 • • BASIC TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PICEANCE LAYDOWN YARD GARFIELD COUN T Y, COLORADO O\oLSSON ASSOCIATES QA Project No. 009-2001 Novembe r 2009 826 21 'h Road I Grand Junction, CO 81505 1970.263 .7800 I Fax 970.263 . • • INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVE This Basic Traffic Analysis summarizes findings of a traffic impact analysis performed for Petroleum Development Corporation's proposed laydown yard facility located on the west side of Garfield County Road (CR) 215 (Parachute Creek Road). The site is approximately four miles northeast of Parachute , CO. See the Figure 1 in Appendix A. The laydown yard facility will be constructed , operated, and reclaimed in three phases . These phases include : • Facility Construction (21 days) • Operation (20 years) • Reclamation (14 days) It is expected that the lifespan of the site will be approximately 20 years . EXISTING NETWORK This laydown yard facility wil l be accessed from CR 215. According to the Garfield County Road Inventory Report , CR 215 is classified as Local. CR 215 is a two lane asphalt roadway with gravel shoulders. The road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. According to the most recent availab le peak hour traffic count (2004), the estimated ADT for CR 215 is 3 ,005 vehicles per day (vpd). TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Given the lack of data regarding traffic growth for this area , a conservative growth rate of 3% was assumed . This rate was applied to the existing counts to obtain background traffic for the forecast years of 2010 and 2030, respectively. These planning horizon years were chosen as they correspond with opening day of construction and reclamation , respectively . This results in an expected ADT of 3,588 vpd in 2010 and 6,481 vpd in 2030 . Laydown Yard Facility Basic Traffic Analysis November 10, 2009 TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION Trip generation is generally determined using rates found in the ITE Trip Generation manual. Rates from this publication are applied to values related to the size of the proposed site to estimate the trips expected to enter and exit the site. In this case , no rates are provided for facilities similar to these. To estimate trips expected for this site, information was gathered regarding the expected traffic based on previous projects similar to this one. The following table summarizes the expected average and maximum trips for each phase discussed previously. Table 1: Trip Generation -Laydown Yard Facility Average Maximum Percent Total Phase Phase Trips/Day Trips/Day Trucks Trips/Phase Duration Construction 6 35 65% 120 21 days Operation 17 12 13 % 125, 120 20 years Reclamation 5 14 14% 74 14 days Note that the estimated lifespan of the site is expected to be approximately 20 years . Current ADT's and expected trip generation are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 in Appendix B. Detailed tables showing daily trips for each phase is shown in Appendix C. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Staging areas and temporary access points will not be required during construction for this project. The access into this facility from CR 215 is already permitted by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department; therefore , no additional permits are required . There will be no rocid closures or traffic interruptions . During the estimated 21 day construction phase, it is expected that the site traffic will be comprised of 65% or less heavy truck traffic . This traffic will be associated with delivering and retrieving equipment on two 22-wheel low boy trucks and delivery of surface construction materials (gravel) by 18-wheel belly dump trucks . AUXILIARY LANE ANALYSIS As defined in the Garfield County Road Inventory Report, CR 215's Functional Classification is Local , set by Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Given the current traffic volumes on CR 215, the addition of the small amount of traffic generated by the laydown yard facility does not bring turning volumes to the required amount for auxiliary lanes. Laydown Yard Facility Basic Traffic Analysis • 2 November 10, 2009 • EXISTING PARCELS Current land use on the parcel is primarily natural gas development with limited rural residential and agricultural use. The majority of existing traffic is related to natural gas development activities. One access road to the site exists and is permitted by Garfield County. No access to state highways or railroad crossings will be required . RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the expected trip generation rates discussed above, the increase in average daily traffic is not expected to be significant. The worst-case scenario during operation of the faci li ty is that there would be a minimal increase in truck tra ffic . Based on the res ults of the analysis , no mitigation is recommended for the laydown yard facility. As mentioned in the Auxiliary La ne Analysis, the addition of traffic by the site does not inc rease low existing volumes to levels required for auxiliary lanes. Prepared Under the Supervis ion of: Dion Pisek , P .E. Laydown Yard Facil ity Basic Traffic Analys is 3 November 10, 2009 - ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------- • 'V XION3dd'V County Roads 0 Parcels Parachute , CO CJ 217129100005 (Area : 350 acres) PROJ ECT NO: DRAIM'J BY: DATE: 009-2001 Leslie Bo oth GISAnalyst 11110109 ACTI V ITY MA P LAYDOWN YARD PETROLEUM DE V ELOPMENT CO GA RFIELD COUNTY, COLORA DO 1 inch equals 0.8 miles O\oLSSON ASSOCIATES 82 6 21-112 ROAD GRA ND J UNCT ION , co 81505 TE L 970.263.7800 FA X 9 70.263.7456 FIGUR E • • • APPENDIX B • • ' :_,I f ,I County Roads D Parcels Parachute , COD 217129100005 (Area : 350 acres) PROJECT NO: DRAVvN BY: DATE : 009-200 1 Leslie Booth GIS Analyst 11/10/09 AV ERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT LAYDOWN YARD PETROLEUM DEV ELOPMENT CO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1 inch equals 0 .8 miles O\oLSSON ASSOCIATES 826 2 1-1/2 ROA D GRAND J UNCT ION , co 8 1505 TEL 970.263.7800 FAX 970.263 .74 56 FIGUR E 2 • Counter lleuures • Site Code : 3 N/S sum: c1-m !CURRENT ADTs (2 00 4) I PAGI : 1 FILE : mmor E/W srREEr: I-70 fROITAGE ID ll0Ye1ents by: Pri1 ary DATI : 6/03/04 Pl!I PERIOD AllLTSIS fOi THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM -8:30 l1I D11ECTIOK Sf Air P£AI HR flOH Pill RODI FACTOR lorth Iast South Vest lorth last South Vest 6:4S ·lll 7:00 ll! 6:30 l1I 7:30 lM 6;30 AM 0.19 0.73 0. 71 0".89 0.86 0.70 0 .11 0.8{ 21 ........ VOLUMES •••••••• Right Thru Left Total 20 92 38 150 u 6 9 29 23 166 71 260 103 11 17 131 Entire Intersection 21 93 9 s L 14s _J 9 101 80 J 260 .. .. 1nmrs ... iig•t · Thr1 Lett 13 61 25 48 21 31 9 64 27 79 8 13 14 6( 21 32 18 so 9 64 27 79 9 12 N W-T-E s 1-9- 28 5 L 14 23 :.. • • ~ XION3dd'V • • PICEANCE LAYDOWN YARD FACILITY Projected Average Daily Traffic County Road 215 Base Year 2004 Base Count 3005 Annual Growth Rate 3% Year Projected ADT 2005 3095 2006 3188 2007 3284 2008 3382 2009 3484 2010 3588 2011 3696 2012 3807 2013 3921 2014 4038 2015 4160 2016 4284 2017 4413 2018 4545 2019 4682 2020 4822 2021 4967 2022 5116 2023 5269 2024 5427 2025 5590 2026 5758 2027 5931 2028 6109 2029 6292 2030 6481 CONSTRUCTION OF PICEANCE LAYDOWN YARD FACILITY Activity Day Trucks Weights No. Trucks Equipment Equipment Wt. Truck Trips Trips/Truck Total Construction of Pad 1 22 Wheel low-boy 170000 GCW 2 D9 85000 1 1 2 1 22 Wheel low-boy 85000 GCW 2 1 1 2 1 22 Wheel low-boy 120000 GCW 2 Grade r/Roller 35000 1 1 2 1 22 Wheel low-boy 85000 GCW 2 1 1 2 5 18-wheel belly dump 80000 GCW 15 Soils/Gravel 50000 1 1 15 5 18-wheel belly dump 30000 GCW 15 1 1 15 9 18-wheel belly dump 80000GCW 15 Soils/Gravel 50000 1 1 15 9 18-wheel belly dump 30000 GCW 15 1 1 15 21 22 Wheel low-boy 85000GVW 2 1 1 2 ~ 21 22 Wheel low-boy 170000 GCW 2 D9 85000 1 1 2 r 21 22 Wheel low-boy 85000GVW 2 1 1 2 21 22 Wheel low-boy 120000 GCW 2 Grader/Roller 35000 1 1 2 Every Day of Construction 1-21 Fuel/Maintenance 60000 GCW 1 Fuel 25000 1 1 1 1-21 Fuel/Maintenance 35000 GCW 1 1 1 1 1-21 Pickup or other light vehi cle 8000GVW 2 21 1 42 Tota l Trips {One Way) 120 Average Trips/Day 6 Ma xim um Trips/Day 35 NOTE: All trips are one-way. e . OPERATION OF PICEANCE LAYDOWN YARD FACILITY Activity Day Trucks We ig hts No . Trucks Equipment Equipment Wt. Truck Trips Trips/Truck Total Operation of Facility Pickup or other lig ht vehicle 8000 GVW 4 4 7300 116800 Flatbed/Heavy Haul Se mi -Truck 115000 GCW 2 Pipe, tanks , etc 57500 2 2080 4160 Flatbed/Heavy Haul Sem i-Tru ck 57500 GCW 2 2 2080 4160 Total Trips (One Way) 12512C For life of facility -assumed 20 years Average Trips/Day 17 Maximum Trips/Day 12 NO TE : All trips are one-way. • e RECLAMATION OF PICEANCE LAYDOWN YARD FACILITY Activity Day Trucks Weights No. Trucks Equipment Equipment Wt. Truck Trips Trips/Truck Total Regrading and Fin al Contour 1 22 Wheel low-boy 120000 GCW 1 Grader 35000 1 1 1 1 22 Wheel low-boy 85000 GCW 1 1 1 1 1 22 Wheel tow-boy 170000 GCW 1 D9 85000 1 1 1 1 22 Wheel low-boy 85000 GCW 1 1 1 1 14 22 Wheel tow-boy 85000 GVW 1 1 1 1 14 22 Wheel low-boy 170000 GCW 1 D9 85000 1 1 1 14 22 Wheel tow-boy 85000 GVW 1 1 1 1 14 22 Wheel low-boy 120000 GCW 1 Grader 35000 1 1 1 Every Day of Construction 1 Fue l/Maintenance 60000 GCW 1 Fuel 25000 1 1 1 14 Fuel/Maintenance 35000 GCW 1 1 1 1 II. 1-14 Pickup or other li ght vehicle 8000 GVW 4 2 8 64 , Tota l Trip s (On e Way) 74 Average Trips/Day 5 Maximum Tr ips/Day 14 NOTE: All trips are one-way . • • • • • STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMEI\i' OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVJRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION TELEPHONE: (303) 692-3500 CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COR-030000 STORMW ATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION Certification Number COR034328 This Certification to Discharge specifically aut horizes: Petroleum Development Corporation LEGAL eoNT ACT: Eric ll Stearns, Vice President Petrol2ulh Development Corporation P.O. Box 26120 Genesis Blvd. Bridgeport, WV 26330 Phone# 3041842-6256 LOCAL CONT ACT: Jeff Davis, Production Superintendant, Phone # 9701506-927.2 During the Construction Activity: Gas/Oil Field Exploration and/or Development to discharge storm.water from the facility identified as Garfield County, Area 1 which is located at: Various sites in Garfield County , Co Latitude 39/10/00, Longitude 108/10/00 In Garfield County to: -Parachute Creek Anticipated Activity begins 07 /01/2002 continuing through 06/30/2007 On 999 acres (5 acres disturbed) Certification is effective: 07101/2007 Certification Expires: 06/30/2012 Annual Fee: $245.00 (DO NOT PAY NOW -A prorated bill will be sent shortly.) Page I of22 • • • PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION • MASTER RECLAMATION PLAN OCTOBER, 2007 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 2.0 RECLAMATION OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 3 3.0 AFFECTED COMMUNITIES/HABITAT ..................................................................... 5 4.0 PREDISTURBANCE INVENTORY AND SITE PLANNING ..................................... 5 4.1 Wellpad and Facility Site Construction ............................................................... 6 4.2 Roads ....................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Pipelines .................................................................................................................. 6 5 .. 0 SOILS OF THE PROJECT AREA .................................................................................. 7 5.1 Topsoil Salvage ....................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Subsoil Salvage ....................................................................................................... 9 6.0 STOCKPILING ................................................................................................................. 9 6.1 Topsoil Stockpiling ................................................................................................. 9 6.2 Pit Soil Stockpiling ................................................................................................. 9 7.0 TEMPORARY REVEGETATION EFFORTS .............................................................. 9 8.0 SOIL AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZERS .............................................................. 10 8.1 Soil Amendments ................................................................................................. 10 8.2 Fertilizers .............................................................................................................. 11 9.0 STABILIZATION AND INTERIM RECLAMATION ............................................... 11 10.0 SOIL REPLACEMENT ................................................................................................. 12 10.1 Topsoil and Pit Soil Replacement ....................................................................... 12 10.2 Wetland Soil ......................................................................................................... 13 11.0 FACILITY AND STRUCTURE REMOVAL ............................................................... 13 12.0 SURFACE PREPARATION .......................................................................................... 13 12.1 Backfilling and Grading ...................................................................................... 13 13.0 SEEDBED PREPARATION/SOIL TILLAGE ............................................................. 14 14.0 SEEDING METHODS .................................................................................................... 14 14.1 Seeding Times ....................................................................................................... 14 14.2 Seeding Methods .................................................................................................. 14 15.0 SEED MIXTURES ........................................................................................................... 14 16.0 MULCHING AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ............................................ 16 16.1 Mulch .................................................................................................................... 16 16.2 Erosion Control Blankets .................................................................................... 16 17.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .......................................................................... 16 17.01 Sediment Basins ................................................................................................... 17 17.02 Straw Bale Dikes .................................................................................................. 17 17.03 Silt Fence ............................................................................................................... 17 17.04 Continuous Berms ................................................................................................ 17 17.05 Rock Check Dams ................................................................................................ 17 18.0 FENCING ......................................................................................................................... 18 18.1 Installation ............................................................................................................ 18 18.2 Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 18 19.0 WEED CONTROL PLAN .............................................................................................. 18 19.1 Post Revegetation Weed Inspections .................................................................. 18 19.2 Weed Control Implementation ........................................................................... 18 20.0 FINAL RECLAMATION ............................................................................................... 19 21.0 RECLAMATION SUCCESS MONITORING AND REVEGETATION INSPECTIONS ................................................................................................................ 19 21.1 Inspections ........................................................................................................................ 19 21.2 Remediation ...................................................................................................................... 20 22.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... 20 11 • • • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Plan covers preliminary planning , pad construction, soil salvage, soil stockpiling, backfilling and grading , re-topsoiling, soil amendments/fertilization, seeding , seed mixtures , mulching , Best Management Practices (BMPs ), fencing , weed control , revegetation inspections and revegetation monitoring . The Plan covers the Grand Valley , Parachute , and Rulison field proposed 10-acre dens ity areas . Chenoweth and Associates E nvironmental Consultants LLC (C&A) personnel completed field surveys for quantitative vegetation and soils data during June 2000. The data collection encompassed twenty (20) revegetated we ll sites and eleven (11) adjacent undisturbed range sites , which served as referenc e areas. The soils and vegetation data and associated summaries are presented in Appendix A. This data and associated summaries provide valuable information on maintaining and enhancing successful future reclamation efforts. In addition , extensi ve high intensity soil surv ey s (i ncluding mapping, sampling and laboratory analyses) have been conducted since th e y ear 2000 at all ne w 20-acre density well sites. Over 100 samples have been collect ed and analyzed. IRI , Inc. of Montrose and Cordilleran Compliance Services , Inc. of Grand Junction have also conducted annu al Reclamation Succe ss Monitoring and Revegetation Inspections. 2.0 RECLAMATION OBJECTIVES The reclamation process has been divided into four major phases: 1) pre-disturbance planning and site preparation , 2) site stabilization during well construction, 3) interim reclamation and monitoring, and 4) final reclamation and success monit oring. By minimizing the amount of land disturbed throu gh pre-disturbance planning and initially preparing the site for construction activit ies with the understanding that the area would eventually be reclaimed (e .g., topsoil stripping and stockpiling for later use during site reconstruction , minimizing cut-and-fill slope s, and disturbing as small an area as possible), the acreage requiring disturbance would be reduced and reclamation success would be fac ilitated. General reclamation objectives are: • The isolation and/or removal of all undesirable materials (e.g ., poor- quality subsoil , contaminated soil , potentially hazardous materials) to protect the reclaimed landscape from contan1ination; • Re-contouring and implementation of other soil conservation, surface manipulation and water management techniques to establish stable slopes, water courses , and drainage featur es to minimize erosion and sedimentation; 3 • Revegetation of reclaimed areas to stabilize soils and establish a vigorous, diverse, self-perpetuating plant community, which contains little undesirable vegetation and is capable of supporting post disturbance land uses; • Establishment of acceptable long-term visual aesthetics by minimizing visual contrasts. Site stabilization during well construction consists of salvage of all usable topsoil and subsoil, immediate vegetation of all topsoil and subsoil stockpiles, and immediate stabilization of disturbed areas to control erosion and provide protection for adjacent undisturbed areas from unnecessary degradation. The vegetation mix used for all site stabilization is listed as the Temporary Mix shown in Table 15.1. The purpose of this mix is to obtain a rapid revegetation that will minimize erosion. This seed is applied to all cut and fill areas, subsoil and topsoil stockpiles and any other areas not needed for well drilling. The seed is not applied to the pad area. Erosion will be considered controlled when water naturally infiltrates into the soil; gullying, head cutting, or slumping is not observed; and rills are less than 6 inches deep. Specific measures to attain these goals are discussed in Section 17.0 (BMPs). Interim reclamation involves the reclamation of those areas disturbed during well construction, but not needed during the production life of the well. These items consist of final grading, relieving of compaction, subsoil and topsoil replacement , seeding, mulching and fence installation to prevent future activity on the interim reclamation areas. Interim reclamation may also include roads leading to well sites . Interim sites will be monitored for reclamation success on an annual basis. Subject to landowner approval, seeding will be done with either the bottomland mix or the pinyon-juniper mix to establish ground cover. These mixes are provided in Tables 15 .2 and 15 .3. Interim reclamation shall occur no later than 3 months on crop land and 12 months on non-crop land and will last for the life of the well. Interim reclamation is done with the intent of final reclamation although certain sites may require re-contouring of the interim areas after the well has ended its useful life. An example of this is a pad that has cut/fill areas that are regraded and reclaimed after the well is finished . Final reclamation includes the removal of all remaining equipment, tanks and structures at the site, final backfilling and full reclamation of those disturbed areas not reclaimed for interim reclamation. The same reclamation procedures described for interim reclamation would be employed. The seed mixes for final reclamation are the same as those for interim reclamation (Tables 15.2 and 15.3). A non-producing well location and associated access road are examples of final reclamation sites. Upon project completion, all disturbed areas except roads to be retained for other land uses would be reclaimed as designated by the landowner. Reclamation success monitoring involves assessing the status of reclaimed areas to ensure they meet desired site stability and productivity standards. Reclamation monitoring would be performed by a 3rd party consultant and would include an evaluation of plant cover, density, and diversity as well as erosion and weed control. • • 4 • • Non-cropland vegetation would be expected to contain a diverse mixture of grasses , forbs, and shrubs as provided in Tables 15.2 and 15 .3. 3.0 AFFECTED COMMUNITIES/HABITAT Within the Grand Valley and Rulison projects areas, five general plant communities have been identified . These plant communities include steep-slope xeric shrub , pinyon/juniper woodland, big sagebrush, desert shrublands, and hay meadows. The steep-slope xeric shrub community contains mountain mahogany and antelope bitterbrush, often with an over story of pinyon and juniper. Pin yon/juniper woodlands consist of pinyon and juniper, with an under story of wheatgrass and needl egrass . The big sagebrush community contains sagebrush, saltbush , greasewood, and wheatgrass . The desert shrub land community primarily consists of saltbush , sagebrush, and warm-season grasses. 4.0 PREDISTURBANCE INVENTORY AND SITE PLANNING PDC personnel and th e ir reclamation consultant wi ll re view locations of well pads , access roads , and ancillary facilities prior to actual construction activities. The following items will be evaluated and /or inventoried. • Suitability of slopes steeper than 2: 1 for construction activities with special erosion control and slope stability measures as n eeded . • Evaluation of true riparian/wetland areas for exclusion from construction disturbance vs. fringe areas that can be properly reclaimed without long tem1 damage to true wetlands and as agreed to by land owners . • Identify an appropriate buffer from intermittent and ephemeral streams. • Identify soil-mapping units of proposed disturbed area; collect one soil sample for every soil series of the proposed disturbed areas, and complete soil physical and chemical analysi s for topsoil stripping, stockpiling and replacement recommendations . Utilize a backhoe to construct a test pit that will facilitate review of soil profile(s) and collecting soil samples. A soil auger and/or additional test pits will be utilized every 1.5 acres to confirm if any additional soil mapping units exist on any given well site. If so, additional soil sampling will be completed. Collect soil samples in 6 -inch lifts or by horizon as determined by a qualified soil scientist. • Inventory any noxious weeds listed in the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (Colorado Department of Agriculture , 1996) and Garfiel d County Noxious Weed Management Plan (Garfield County Vegetation Management, 2000). • Prepare a preliminary list of BMPs to be utilized during construction and as a part of final reclamation efforts. A list of actual BMPs may be better defined immediately prior to comp letion of construction activities. 5 • Prepare a preliminary sketch plan of fencing for proposed disturbance areas for rangelands . • List fertilization, soil amendment , soil tillage, seed mixture, mulching methods (if deemed necessary by the reclamation consultant), and any other cultural practices to be used within defined vegetation zones. A comprehensive description of revegetation and erosion control efforts is described in each the following sections of this Plan. 4 .1 Wellpad and Facility Site Construction Prior to construction, proposed pad and facility site locations would be surveyed and staked. Locations would be designed to parallel the contour with reserve pits on the uphill side of pads whenever possible. Well pads would be designed and constructed to disturb the smallest area necess ary to pro vide for efficient and safe operations. Excess cut material would be incorporated into fill slopes or placed in designated areas and stabilized. Backsloping would be necessary only in areas of steep terrain (> 3: I slopes). This material shall be utilized during the reclamation process. During construction, interceptor ditches would be installed above cuts and around reserve pits , as necessary. Collector ditches and sediment control structures constructed for a storm event may be required below fill areas. Smaller flows would be diverted and/or collected before being discharged from the disturbed area. Qualified personnel would supervise the installation of all erosion control structures, including berms, dikes and trenche s . 4 .2 Roads New roads generally would follow natural contours and would be constructed in accordance with industry road standards. For roads on slopes of less that 15%, available strippable/useable topsoil would be stripped from the construction area and placed in windrows within the construction ROW by side casting with a grader. Where roads must be constructed on slopes greater than 15%, and significant topsoil is present, topsoil would be transported to more level terrain for storage. After road construction, strippable/useable topsoil, if any , would be replaced on road out slopes, and these areas would be reseeded. 4.3 P ipe li nes When constructing and reclaiming pipelines , existing crowned-and-ditched roads would be used for access , where practical, to minimize surface disturbance. Pipeline trenches would not be placed in access road borrow ditches unless other • e 6 • reasonable locations are unavailable. Gathering pipelines may be installed on the surface in areas where slopes are greater than 25% and/or where rock outcrops are crossed; when possible, they would be built perpendicular to the contour to minimize the area required for construction. Vegetation would be removed from pipeline ROWs so as to leave the root systems intact and the removed vegetation would be spread over disturbed areas to provide protection, nutrient recycling, and a natural seed source . If pipelines are trenched rather than plowed in, trenches would be excavated with a backhoe or similar equipment to minimize disturbance. Frozen soils , vegetation , and snow would not be used to backfill pipeline trenches. This action would reduce trench compaction needs. In no event would backfill berms in excess of 6 inches in height be placed over backfilled trenches . Construction of pipelines in wetlands would comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) pennit requirements. Silt fences or other sediment control devices would also be installed along channel banks where sedimentation is excessive and at the bases of slopes adjacent to wetland/riparian areas (as necessary to control sediment). Temporary sediment barriers would remain in place until final revegetation measures have been successfully implemented. 5.0 SOILS OF THE PROJECT SITES The soils of the Grand Valley, Parachute, and Rulison areas tend to be shallow soils derived from alluvial and colluvial material. Restrictive features for plant growth result from high coarse fragment content, alkalinity, lack of carbonaceous material and poor soil texture. Existing sparse vegetative cover and the lack of desirable plant species in undisturbed areas reflects the shallow nature of in-situ soils. In addition, overgrazing has enhanced the presence of invader species (noxious weeds). The soils of the Grand Valley project area tend to be poorer due to topography that exists in shale bluffs and rock outcrop areas. The soils in the Rulison project area contain somewhat deeper alluvial deposits containing more desirable plant growth media. 5.1 Topsoil Salvage C&A utilized the Soil Survey of the Rifle Area (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1985) and soil sampling of reclaimed well sites to prepare general recommendations for soil salvage on future well site installation. Additionally, over 100 soil samples have been extracted from well sites over the past few years (2000-2002) according to the soil scientist recommendations. These samples were analyzed and used to develop stripping procedures and reclamation plans. Site-specific topsoil salvage recommendations will range from O" to 12" based on 7 present observations . Research indicates that it is better to replace a shallower layer of topsoil than to co-mingle undesirable physical and chemical prqperties resulting from deeper soil salvage. A qualified soil specialist will make all topsoil salvage recommendations prior to land disturbance . These recommendations will be based on review of soil mapping units of specific well sites and soil sampling within common soil mapping units and vegetation communities. Specifically, due to the common characteristics of soil properties that occur within the same soil mapping unit and vegetation communities it is not necessary to soil sample every proposed well site. If additional soil mapping units exist on any given well site, additional soil sampling will occur. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's Guideline 1 Topsoil and Overburden will be used as a reference to rank soils as good, fair, or poor for topsoil salvage. In no case will soils rated poor for topsoil salvage be used unless properly amended, as determined by a qualified soil specialist (see soil amendment section for comprehensive discussion of proposed soil amendments). The physical and chemical parameters proposed for use in determining topsoil quality will consist of the following: Soil texture, pH, Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity, saturation percentage, Selenium , Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, cation exchange capacity, and organic matter content. Any surplus topsoil material that is generated during the topsoil stripping operation will be stockpiled in a safe location on the property from whicJ;i it was taken and utilized for other well site reclamation activities where a deficiency may exist. A deficiency in topsoil cover is defined as less than 3 inches of suitable un-amended topsoil. Care will be taken to avoid stripping soils with coarse fragments greater than 35 % in volume. A previous literature review completed by C&A indicates severe rooting restrictions for herbaceous species for areas containing higher amounts of rock fragments . If high coarse fragments are encountered, PDC' reclamation consultant/qualified soil specialist may recommend rock picking , rock screening , or import of topsoil material. Screened or picked rock material will be buried in cuts, or placed deep enough below the soil surface to avoid rooting restrictions for reclamation efforts . Alternate site preparation procedures may be applied in some areas to facilitate reclamation; however, it is assumed that most, if not all, of these areas can be avoided . In potential wetland areas, vegetation would be cut to ground level, leaving existing root systems intact. Grading activities would be limited to areas directly over pipeline trenches and road surface areas, and at least 12 inches of topsoil would be salvaged and replaced except in areas with standing water or saturated soils. Construction when the ground is frozen may be implemented as an alternative to minimize damage . Use of construction equipment would be • e 8 • • limited, and if standing water or saturated soils are present, wide-track or ballo on- tire construction equipment or normal construction equipment operated on equipment pads or geotextile fabric overlain with gravel fill may be used. Equipment pads would be removed immed iately following the completion of construction activities. Trench spoil would be placed at least 10 feet from drainage channel banks, and dirt, rock fill, and brush riprap would not be used to stabilize ROWs. All operations within jurisdictional wetland areas would comply with COE permit stipulations as necessary . 5.2 Subsoil Handling During the installation of well pad sites , subsoil materials will be utilized to construct well pads. Information collected during the pre-disturbance inventory and s ite-planning phase will be utilized to determine if special handling of poor quality subsoil materials should occur. Thi s information will include physical and chemical analysis from soil lab results. Poor quality subsoil materials may consist of calcareous, alkaline , and high coarse fragments soils , etc. Deleterious subsoi l materials will be kept lower in the profile of well pads so as not to interfere with plant growth. Adequate topsoil cover and/or use of soil amendments will also be utilized to ensure a proper growth medium for reclamation efforts. 6.0 STOCKPILING 6.1 Topsoil Stockpiling Topsoil will be stockpiled in such a manner that it can be readily recovered for reclamation purposes. Topsoil stockpiles will be located away from natural drainage courses. Stockpiles should be constructed with no greater than 3: 1 side slopes and with a height of three to six feet where possible , given the flexibility needed in confined areas for stockpiles on drill site s . By constructing stockpiles in this manner, valuable soil fungi and bacteria will not be lost. 6.2 Pit Soil Stockpiling Drilling pits are constructed by removing adequate subsoil and overburden materials to accommodate drilling fluids generated during the actual drilling process. The subsoil material will be stockpiled in an easily accessible area. Pit soils will be stockpiled in such a manner so as to avoid co-mingl ing with topsoil stockpiles. 7.0 TEMPORARY REVEGETATION EFFORTS Topsoil stockpiles will be seeded immediately after placement with a quick germinating cover of grasses as presented in Table 15.1. Topsoil stockpiles will be dozer tracked on the contour to create cleat marks that will serve as erosion basins. Also, a continuous berm will be placed around any down slope sides of the topsoil stockpile to prevent addition runoff and potential erosion. 9 8.0 SOIL AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZERS 8.1 Soil Amendments At the advice of their reclamation consultant, PDC may elect to use one or more soil amendments to overcome poor chemical or physical conditions in existing surface soils. Poor soil conditions could include one or more of the following: • High SAR values • High electrical conductivity values • High pH values • Low nutrient content/low organic matter content. The following amendments are listed for consideration . While these products have been proven beneficial on other projects, it is in PDC ' best interest to test their performance on selective well sites before committing to a final program. PDC' reclamation consultant/qualified soil specialist will determine the well sites that may benefit from soil amendments and their application rates. The following is a list of soil amendments and the minimum recommended application rates . One or more of the following amendments may be utilized where 12 inches of favorable growth media cannot be salvaged and replaced at each well site. • Composted materials consisting of manure (cow or pig preferred), wood chips, etc . Apply at 75 -125 cubic yards per acre. Biosolids. Apply at 75 -125 cubic yards per acre. • Biosol organic fertilizer (as supplied by Rocky Mountain Bio-products). Apply at 1,000 -1,400 pounds per acre . • Humates consisting of humic and fulvic acids. Apply at 800 -2,000 pounds per acre . • Elemental Sulfur. Apply according to soil test recommendations. These materials would be mixed with the existing soil material on site. Importation of good topsoil will also be considered. The quantity imported will depend on many factors, such as availability of the imported soil, the quality of the site soil , etc. Compost, biosolids, and Biosol all provide macronutrients for plant growth and organic matter which helps create soil aggregation. Humate materials help create soil aggregation. Elemental sulfur helps displace sodium ions in the soil. • • 10 • • 8.2 Fertilizers Inorganic fertilizers will be applied to the soil surface as determined by soil test results indicating the need for nitrogen , ph osphorous , or potassium fertilizers. Nitrogen fertilizer may not be added in many cases at the time of seeding because of its influence on rapid weed invasion at the expense of more desirable species. The revegetation specialist will make the final determination on the need for fertilizer applications. Any app lication o f fertilizer will be followed by soil tillage to incorporate the material properly. 9.0 STABILIZATION AND INTERIM RECLAMATION Stabilization and interim reclamation would occur on all areas where final reclamation cannot be applied, and on areas that may be re-disturbed during final reclamation. Disturbed areas subject to interim reclamation include road cut-and-fill areas and portions of each well pad and ancillary facility sites not n eeded for production-related activities. Interim reclamation measures would be applied only as needed , since final reclamation measures would be applied concurrently with the completion of most project construction activities (i.e ., final reclamation measures woul d be applied on all areas that would likely remain undisturbed for the remainder of the LOW) (See Section 20 .0) Stabilization and interim reclamation objectives include: • Stabilization of disturbed areas b y providing wind and wate r erosion control to reduce soil loss and the chance of slope failure; • Minimization of surface runoff to prevent the degradation of downstre am receiving waters through the use of pollution control techniques (e.g ., facility sites would be required to approach zero runoff from the location, using interception ditches , berms, or other structures to capture accidental spills); • Establishment of non-intrusive plant communities to protect soil resources or; • Establishment of agricultural production; and • Minimization of visual impacts. Upon completion of a specific development activity (e.g., road construction, well testing), the area to be reclaimed for the LOW would be delineated . For example, all road topsoil storage in out slope areas, as well as the potentially disturbed outer portions of road ROWs would be stabilized and reseeded until final road reclamation is initiated. Final reclamation practices would be applied on areas that would likely remain undisturbed for . the remainder of the LOW. 11 Where possible, disturbed areas would be graded and contoured to slopes of 3: 1 (horizontal: vertical) or less or as required to stabilize the area and provide a suitable seedbed. Well sites that need to be constructed on steeper slopes (> 3: 1) will be based on the ability to perform stable construction efforts as required. Contoured areas would be ripped, as necessary, to reduce soil compaction. Ripping in many areas may be conducted after topsoil replacement. Temporary erosion control measures (e .g., water bars, mulch application, and biodegradable netting installation) also would be applied as necessary . To minimize sedimentation of drainage channels and wetlands during the interim period between construction activity and final reclamation , temporary erosion and sediment control measures would be applied. Silt fences or other sediment filtering devices such as weed-free straw bales would be installed at drainage channel banks where sedimentation is excessive and at the base of all slopes adjacent to wetland/riparian areas. Sediment filtering devices would be maintained in functional condition until revegetation/reclamation efforts yield a stable vegetation cover. To avoid the possibility of mulching materials entering waterways , loose mulch (i .e., mulch not crimped into the soil surface , tackified, or incorporated into erosion control blankets) would not be applied to drainage channel banks. Section 17.0 describes BMPs in more detail. Seedbed preparation activities would include topsoil replacement and harrowing , disking , pitting, and/or ripping. After topsoil replacement and preparation, the area would be seeded at the first appropriate opportunity using a seed mixture developed to facilitate rapid establishment of vegetation and site stabilization (Table 15 .1) or a seed mixture designed for interim or final reclamation (see Section 15 .0), as appropriate. Landowner preferences will be honored in the development of seed mixes. Areas that have been seeded would be visually monitored for seedling establishment and the presence of erosional features and would be re-stabilized and reseeded, as necessary, until adequate vegetation establishment and site stability is achieved (see Section 21.0). In general, the annual Reclamation Success Monitoring and Revegetation Inspection procedures would also be applied at interim reclamation sites. 10.0 SOIL REPLACEMENT 10.1 Topsoil and Pit Soil Replacement Immediately after drilling operations and pit processing has occurred, PDC will rip the existing subsoil surface to a depth of 18 inches (or that allowable if large rock fragments are present). Topsoil shall be replaced evenly over all disturbed areas using small dozers to prevent re-compaction of the growth medium. Topsoil will not be replaced in extremely wet or frozen conditions. Thoroughly mixing pit contents with subsoil and covering processed pit materials with at least 3 feet of subsoil material and a final layer of topsoil will reclaim the pit area . • • 12 • • 10.2 Wetland Soils All operations within jurisdictional wetland areas would comply with COE permit stipu lations as necessary . 11 .0 FACILITY AND STRUCTURE REMOVAL All gas wells would be abandoned according to Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulations. All aboveground well pad, pipeline , and water disposal facilities , including buildings , structures , tanks , reserve pits , flare pits , and associated hardware, would be closed or dismantled and removed from the site . These materials would be removed and likely would be salvaged and re-used or disposed of at approved sites. Any concrete foundations, pads , or footings would be adequately broken up and covered or removed. All aggregate used for well pad, road , and/or ancillary facility site construction also would be removed or suita bl y buried. Road reclamation would be conducted as deemed appropriate b y COGCC and the surface landowners; some roads may remain after proj e ct completion. Road reclamation would include the removal of bridges , culverts, cattle guards , sediment control structures , and signs . Drainage-crossing side slopes would be r educed in order to minimize bank erosion and produce stable side slope s. In addition , road barriers or s igns may be used to discourage travel on reclaimed road surfaces. 11.0 SURFACE PREPARATION Surface preparation includes backfillin g, grading, and ripping of compacted soils. In some areas subjected to interim reclamation (See Section 7.0), topsoil removal and short- tem1 storage may also be required. 12.1 Backfilling and Grading After facilities and equipment have been removed, reclamation of pads would be conducted as deemed appropriate by PDC in conjunction with surface landowners, and some pads may remain after project completion. Final reclamation would be conducted in a manner to minimize any additional disturbance of native or previously reclaimed areas . Grading would be conducted as necessary to provide a surface suitable for the replacement of a uniform depth of topsoil , while promoting cohesion between subsoil and topsoil layers, reducing wind erosion, and facilitating moisture capture. Specialized grading techniques would be applied as necessary and may include slope rounding, bench grading, stair-step grading, and/or contour furrowing. Equipment selection would be determined on a site-specific basis , depending upon the material to be graded , the size of the area, on-site operating conditions , and equipment availability. 13 No visible soil berm (i.e., in excess of 3 inches) would be allowed above pipeline trenches . PDC-provided reclamation specialists would ensure that backfilling and grading operations are conducted so as to provide a landscape suitable for successful reclamation. Ripping of the subsoil material will occur to a depth of 16 inches (where the nature of the material permits) to relieve compaction of the subsoil and provide better rooting medium for later plant growth. No heavy equipment will be moved over the prepared surface once it has been ripped. Small dozers will be used to replace subsoil and topsoil. 13.0 SEEDBED PREP ARA TI ON/SOIL TILLAGE If the re-topsoiled surface is not loose and friable after topsoil application, soil tillage will be performed. Acceptable methods of soil tillage will consist of disking, chisel plowing, or harrowing to a depth of 4 inches. No more than 10% of the reclaimed area will contain rocks greater than 8" in diameter. The only exception to this condition will be in- situ soils that naturally contain greater amounts of rock material. Also, as previously stated in the topsoil stripping section, no more than 35 -40% coarse fragments of any size will be allowed on the soil surface, to avoid impacting revegetation success. Larger volumes of coarse fragment will either be screened or picked prior to seeding operations. Rock material will be buried in cut slope areas or buried under the well pad a minimum of 3 feet below the final soil surface so a not to interfere with the rooting depth of desirable vegetation species. 14.0 SEEDING METHODS 14.1 Seeding Times Seeding shall be completed at any time of year except during ground freeze conditions and except from May 31 to August 15. 14.2 Seeding Methods On slopes of 3: 1 or flatter, drill seeding shall be utilized. Drill seeders shall be capable of handling a variety of different seed textures. Drill rows shall be no greater than 12 inches on center. All drilling shall be completed on the parallel to the contour of the land where practical. Seed will be drilled to a depth of .25 to .50 inches. Steeper slope areas will be broadcast seeded or seeded with other methods . Broadcast seeding will be accomplished with hand held spreaders, A TV mounted, or tractor mounted and will be capable of spreading seed uniformly. All seed will be raked or harrowed to lightly cover seed with soil. 15.0 SEED MIXTURES Tables 15.1 thru 15.3 have been created based on those species that have performed the best in the last four years of reclamation efforts . • • 14 TABLE 15.1 TEMPORARY SEED MIX COMMON NAME Graminoids Thickspike Wheatgrass Smooth Brome Sideoats Grama Russian Wildiye Totals SPECIES NAME Agrovyron dasystachyum Bromis inermis Bouteloua curtipendula Elymus junceus note: rates proposed are for drill seeding, broadcast rate 2x TABLE 15.2 BOTTOMLAND SEED MIX COMMON NAME Graminoids Tall Wheatgrass Western Wheatgrass Russian Wildiye Switchgrass Alkali Sacaton Forbs Scarlet Globemallow Shrubs Black Greasewood Totals SPECIES NAME Agrypyron elongatum Agropyron smithii Elymus junce us Panicum vir}!,atum Sporobolus airoides Sphaeralcea coccinea Sarcobatus vermiculatus note: rates proposed are for drill seeding, broadcast rate 2x TABLE 15.3 PINYON- JUNIPER SEED MIX • SEED SEEDS/ RATE VARIETY SEEDS/LB SQFT lbs (pls)/ac Critana 160 ,000 9 2.45 Lincoln 145,000 13 3.91 Butte 190 ,000 10 2.29 Vanall , Bozoisky-select 170,000 8 2 .05 40 10 .70 SEED SEEDS/ RATE VARIETY SEEDS/LB SQFT lbs (pls)/ac Alkar, Jo se 80 ,000 6 3 .27 Arriba 125,000 6 2 .09 Vanall, Bozoisky-select 170,000 8 2 .05 Paloma 160 ,000 6 1.63 1,750,000 8 0.20 ARS 2936 500,000 4 0.35 250,000 2 0.35 40 9.94 SEED SEEDS/ RATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---.~~~~-i I COMMONNAME !SPECIES NAME I VARIETY I SEEDS/LB SQFT lbs (pls)/ac 15 Graminoids West em Wheat grass Awovvron smithii Thickspike Wheatgrass Awopyron dasystachyum Russian Wildrye Elymus junceus Galleta Hilaria jamesii Indian Ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides Forbs Small Burnet San~uisorba minor Shrubs Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata Totals note: rates proposed are for drill seeding, broadcast rate 2x Arriba 125,000 Critana 160,000 Vanall, Bozoisky-select 170,000 Viva 160,000 Paloma 155,000 Delar 50 ,000 Hobblecreek 2 ,500,000 16.0 MULCHING AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS 16.1 Mulch Mulching with either certified hay at 1.5 tons per acre or cereal grain straw at 2 .0 tons per acre would be applied on all reclaimed sites. Mulch material will be crimped into the soil surface unless the slopes are steeper than 3H : 1 V, in which case the mulch will be applied by broadcast methods. Hydro mulching using wood fiber at 1.5 tons per acre with an environmentally friendly tackifier may also be used. 16.2 Erosion Control Blanket Erosion Control Blankets (ECBs) will only be utilized as necessary. E CBs will consist of excelsior material, straw blankets, or straw /coconut blankets. Because of the rocky nature of soils occurring in the Grand Valley, Parachute, and Rulison project areas, a Bonded Fiber Matrix (BFM) may be recommended for use. BFMs contain long fibers of hydro mulch with heavy guar tackifiers. BFM cures to appear like a hard foam insulation that adheres to the soil surface better than ECBs. 17.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A number of different BMPs are anticipated for use on the various future well sites associated with the 10-acre well density. They are listed and described below. 17.1 Sediment Basins Sediment basins are ponds created by excavation that are usually temporary in design and are intended to collect and store sediment form sites that are cleared e • 16 6 2 .09 8 2 .18 7 1.79 10 2 .72 6 1.69 2 1.74 1 0.02 40 12 .23 • • and/or graded during construction. Frequently these sites are left exposed for extended periods of time before either permanent vegetation is re-established or permanent drainage structure is completed. Basin construction is intended to trap sediment before it leaves the disturbed site . Since sediment basins are temporary, they must be maintained until the disturbance area is permanently stabilized. 17.2 Straw Bale Dikes Straw bale dikes intercept and detain small amounts of sediment transported by sheet and rill type runoff. The dikes trap sediment by ponding water and allowing sediment to settle out. Straw bale dikes also slow runoff velocities acting to reduce sheet, rill and gully erosion. Straw bale dikes may also be used when installed to reduce erosion and sedimentations around the disturbance area perimeter. All straw bales will consist of certified weed-free materials. 17.3 Silt Fence Silt fence is a temporary polypropylene sediment barrier placed on the slope contour to trap sediment by ponding water behind it and allowing sediment to settle out. Silt fence can effectively trap sheet and rill erosion within small drainage areas and on slopes with gradients up to 2 : 1. Silt fence is most cost effective when used for sediment and erosion control around the perimeter of a disturbance area . 17.4 Continuous Berms A continuous berm is a temporary divers ion or sediment barrier constructed with infill material and used to divert and intercept sheet runoff. Continuous berms are useful for erosion and sediment control around the perimeter of construction sites . The berms detain and pond sediment laden storm water resulting in sediment deposition. 17.S Rock Check Dams Check dams are rock dams constructed across drainage ways to dissipate the energy of flowing water and reduce gully erosion. They are temporary stabilization structures that are used until the drainage way is permanently stabilized. Check dams are used in ephemeral streams to reduce flow velocities , trap and store larger-sized sediment and provide stabilized drops. 18.0 FENCING 18 .1 Installation A four-strand barbed wire fence will be erected around the largest possible portion of the well site for interim reclamation. Adequate access must be)eft open to the actual wellhead and ancillary facilities. 17 A take down gate may be installed in the fenced enclosure area, for herbicide application vehicles; if it is determined that access to the revegetated area is large enough to warrant this feature. T-posts will be placed every 16 feet with line braces installed for every 1,300 feet of run. Steel comer sets will be placed on every comer and either compacted in- place or cemented in. 18.2 Maintenance Fences will be inspected on a regular basis and repaired as needed to exclude cattle from entering the reclaimed area. Fences will be kept in-place as necessary to allow vegetation in reclaimed areas to reach a self-sustaining cover. 19.0 WEED CONTROL PLAN The Colorado Noxious Weed Management Act (Colorado Department of Agriculture - 1996) and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Garfield County Vegetation Management -2000) provide for control of noxious weeds on all unincorporated lands within the county. PDC has developed a weed management plan that complies with state and county policies. There are 21 noxious weeds listed in the county list and 68 plants on the state list. 19.1 Post Revegetation Weed Inspections A reclamation/revegetation specialist will conduct a Reclamation Success Monitoring and Revegetation Inspection annually, after green up of vegetation . If during these inspections it is determined that the noxious weed species presence and densities represent a threat to the revegetated areas or surrounding lands, mechanical or chemical control measures will be employed. 19.2 Weed Control Implementation During the first growing season of native grasses , forbs , and shrubs use of chemical herbicides will not be feasible. Until newly reseeded species reach a height of 3-6 inches they are susceptible to damage from herbicides . Therefore , mechanical weed control is proposed for the first growing season if re-seeded species are not determined to be mature enough to withstand herbicide spray. Bush Hog mowers, weedeaters, and/or hand pulling of weeds will be employed as mechanical control devices . During subsequent years herbicide applications will be utilized when weed densities are determined to pose a threat to revegetation success or spread to surrounding lands. The county weed management specialist will be consulted to determine what chemical herbicides will be the most beneficial for controlling noxious weeds. It is anticipated that an aggressive revegetation and weed management program will • • 18 • • result in weed control only needing to be performed during the first three years after re-seeding efforts. A self-sustaining native species cover is the best mechanism for depleting weed species growth and spread to surrounding land areas. 20 .0 FINAL RECLAMATION Final reclamation would be completed as soon as practical, but within 3 months on crop land and 12 months on non-crop land after plugging a well. Permanent reclamation objectives include all those listed for interim reclamation (See Section 9.0), plus the following: • The re -establishment of desirable self-sustaining vegetat ion communities that approximate pre-disturbance parameters for cover, dens ity and diversity, as measured at adjacent undisturbed areas ; • The development of hydrologicall y stable landforms that meet future land uses including livestock grazing , w ildlife habitat, and mineral exploration ; and • Establish conditions for the eventual restoration of the visual quality of the area . 21.0 RECLAMATION SUCCESS MONITORING AND REVEGETATION INSPECTIONS 21.1 Inspections On an annual basis , a revegetation/reclamation specialist will inspect each 10-acre dens ity well site. Observations will be made for weed species presence, fence damage, erosion occurrences, and bare ground resulting from lack of germination and fill-in of native seeded species. _Evaluation of the vegetatio n will include estimates of species type, diversity, and ground cover. Reclamation success monitoring will commence during the 1st growing season and continue until interim and final reclamation and revegetation efforts meet or exceed 90% of the desirable plant cover found on the reference area(s). Reference areas will generally be adjacent areas that best represent the original well site before disturbance . Cover data will be collected by establishin g fixed locations at each reclaimed area and the surrounding reference area. During each inspection, a qualified vegetation specialist will visually inspect the reclaimed and reference areas and take p ictures at each fixed location to establish an ongoing record of the reclamation progress. These pictures will be taken using set procedures for consistency. The specialist will then estimate the percent live cover of the reclaimed area and make a comparison to the reference area(s). A detailed report 19 of this data as well as other inspection data, such as presence of noxious weeds , erosion, fence status, grazing, etc. will be incorporated into the annual inspection report for the specified well sites and filed with the COGCC on an annual basis by December 31 . 21.2 Remediation Observations of any problems will result in additional revegetation/reclamation efforts. Erosional features will be repaired by filling-in wash outs greater than 6 inches deep and re-grading. Areas containing less than 2 de sirable species per square foot and/or areas greater than 2 square feet will result in touch-up hand seeding and raking . Larger areas exhibiting revegetation failure will be re-tilled and seeded as described above in corresponding sections of this Plan. 22.0 LITERATURE CITED Colorado Department of Agriculture -1996 . Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Colorado Department of Agriculture. Chenoweth and Associates Environmental Consultants LLC -2000. Reclamation Plan for Barrett Resources Corporation -20-Acre Density Natural Gas Development Project. Garfield County Vegetation Management -2000 . Colorado Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County Vegetation Management and the Garfield County Weed Advisory Board TRC -1998. Reclamation Plan for Barrett Resources Corporation -20-Acre Density Natural Gas Development Project. USDA Soil Conservation Service -1985 . Soil Survey of Rifle area, Colorado . Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties , USDA. • • 20 • USDA United States ~ Department of Agriculture '°' NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service • A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey , a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies , State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants • Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Petroleum Development Corporation Proposed Laydown Yard November 9, 2009 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers , ranchers , fo resters , agronomists, urban planners , community officials , engineers , developers , builders, and home buyers. Also , conservationists , teachers , students , and specialists i n recreation , waste disposal , and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand , protect , or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State , and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. So i l surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses . The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and comply ing with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm , local , and wider area planning , onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases . Examples include soil quality assessments (h tt p://soils .usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications . Fo r more detailed information , contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices .sc .egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http ://soils .usda .gov/contacU state_ offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur with in short distances . Some soi ls are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields . A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies , State agencies including the Agricultu ral Experiment Stations, and local agencies . The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federa l part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official so il survey information . The U.S . Department of Agriculture (USDA) proh i bits d iscrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race , color, natio na l orig in, age , disability, and where applicable , sex , marital status, familial status , parental status , religion , sexual orientation , genetic information, political beliefs , reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program . (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilit ies who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Br~ille, large print, audiotape , etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights , 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. e 3 e • Contents Preface .................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made .................................................................................. 5 Soil Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Soil Map ................................................................................................................ 8 Legend .................................................................................................................. 9 Map Unit Legend ................................................................................................ 10 Map Unit Descriptions ........................................................................................ 10 R if le Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties ............................ 12 46-Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent s lopes ......................................... 12 47-Nih ill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes ....................................... 12 62-Rock outcrop-Torriorthents comple x, very steep ................................. 13 65-Torrifluvents, nearly level. .................................................................... 14 Soil Information for All Uses ............................................................................... 16 Suitab ilities and Limitations for Use .................................................................... 16 Building Site Development. ............................................................................. 16 Corrosion of Concrete ................................................................................. 16 Corrosion of Steel. ....................................................................................... 19 Land Classifications ....................................................................................... .22 Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site .................................................. 22 Land Management. ........................................................................................ .25 Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface) ........................................................ 25 Soil Properties and Qualities .............................................................................. 30 Soil Qualities and Features ............................................................................. 30 Depth to Any Soil Rest ri ctive Layer ............................................................. 30 Drainage Class ............................................................................................ 33 Hydrologic Soil Group ................................................................................. 36 Representative Slope .................................................................................. .40 Unified Soil Classification (Surface) ........................................................... .43 Water Features .............................................................................................. .46 Depth to Water Table ................................................................................. .46 Flooding Frequency Class ........................................................................... 50 Soil Reports ........................................................................................................ 54 Building Site Development.. ............................................................................ 54 Roads and Streets , Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping .... 54 Land Classifications ........................................................................................ 56 Taxonomic Classification of the Soils .......................................................... 57 Soil Chemical Properties ................................................................................. 58 Chemical Soil Properties ............................................................................. 58 Soil Physical Properties .................................................................................. 61 Physical Soil Properties ............................................................................... 61 Soil Qualities and Features ............................................................................. 65 Soil Features ............................................................................................... 65 References ................................................................... .' ........................................ 68 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area . They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses . Soil scientists observed the steepness , length, and shape of the slopes ; the general pattern of drainage ; the kinds of crops and native plants ; and the kinds of bedrock . They observed and described many so il profiles . A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons , in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the so il formed or from the surfa ce down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently , so ils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resou rce areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that sha re common characteristics related to phys iography , geology , climate , water resources , so ils , biological resources , and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate , and natu ral vegetation of the area . Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the so ils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their pos it ion to specific segments of the landform , a soil sc ient ist develops a concept , or model , of how th ey were formed . Thus , during mapp ing , this model enables the soi l scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly , i nd ividual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characte rist ics gradually change . To construct an accu rate soil map , however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the so ils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles . Nevertheless, these observations , supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship , are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determ ine the boundaries . Soil scientists recorded the characterist ics of the soil profiles that they studied . They noted so il color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates , kind and amoun t of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots , reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determin ing their properties , the soil scientists assigned the so i ls to taxonom ic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts . Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits . The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically . Soil taxonomy, the system of ta xonomic classification used in the United States , is based mainly on the ki nd and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons w ithin the profile . After the so il scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area , they compared the • 5 • • • Custom Soil Resou rce Report ind ividual so i ls with similar soils in the same ta xonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additiona l data based on ex perience and research . The objective of soil mapping is not to del ineate pure map unit components ; the objective is to separate the landscape into landfo rms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements . Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of so il components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions . Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data . The de li neation of such landforms and landfo rm segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans . If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite invest igation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas . Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map . The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors , includ ing scale of mapping , intensity of mapping , design of map un its , complexity of the landscape , and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the so il- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations . Once the soil-landscape model is refined , a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are ma d e and recorded . These measurements may include field measurements , such as those for color , dept h to bedrock , and texture , and laboratory measurement s , such as those for content of sand , silt , c lay , salt , and other components . Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape . Observations for map un it components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented . Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map un it component. Values for some properties are es t imated from comb i nations of other properties . While a soil survey is in progress , samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for eng ineering tests . Soil scientists interp ret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the e xpected behavior of the so ils under different uses . Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in d ifferent uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions , and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs . Data are assembled from othe r sou rces , such as research informat ion , production records, and field experience of spec ial ists . For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not on ly on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soi l conditions are pred ictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example , soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in mos t years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the s ignificant natural bodies of soil in the survey area , they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photog raphs show trees , buildings, fields, roads , and rivers , all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. ' 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest , a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit , and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. • 7 • • 747100 39• 30' 11 " 0 0 N <O .... M • .., 0 0 ;;; .... M .., 9 39·29·44 .. 747100 N A • Custom Soil Resource Report So il Map 747200 747300 747400 747200 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 ~p rinted on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") sheel ---===------======Me ters 0 35 70 140 2 10 ---===------=====:::iFeet 0 100 200 400 600 747500 747600 39• 30 10' 0 0 N <O .... M .., 0 0 ;;; :;; .., 39• 29' 44" 747500 747600 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Special Point Features ~ Blowout 181 Borrow Pit * Clay Spot • Closed Depression x Gravel Pit .. Gravelly Spot @ Landfill A Lava Flow "*' Marsh or swamp ~ Mine or Quarry @ Miscellaneous Water @ Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot ~ Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole p Slide or Slip % Sodic Spot :: Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot (lJ Very Stony Spot t Wet Spot .;. Other Special Line Features ~o Gully .~._. ··~·. .. _•, Short Steep Slope ~~·;. Other . . ,.~ Political Features 0 Cities D PLSS Township and Range D PLSS Section Water Features D Oceans ____ .. Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails -Interstate Highways ,.,...._,.. US Routes ~ ~ ... -·· Major Roads ,.,,...,, Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ")sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coo rdinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area : Rifle Area , Co lorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6 , Mar 25 , 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993 ; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were comp il ed and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. e e ---------------- Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C0683) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent slopes 17.9 47 Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep 14.3 65 Torrifluvents , nearly level 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions , along with the maps , can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils . With in a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits forthe properties of the soils . On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variab ility of all natural phenomena . Thus , the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class . Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely , if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes . Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils . Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components . They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description . Other minor components , however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting , or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps . If included in the database for a given area , the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each . A few areas of minor components may not have been observed , and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way d iminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans . If • 10 • 27 .6% 48.5% 22 .1% 1.8% 100.0% ~----------------... ·--• • Custom Soil Resource Report intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map un it name in the map unit descript ions . Each description includes gene ral facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series . Except for differences in texture of the surface layer , all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition , thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope , stoniness , salinity, degree of erosion , and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences , a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed so il maps are phases of soil series . The name of a soil phase commonly ind icates a feature that affects use or management. For example , Alpha silt loam , 0 to 2 percent slopes , is a phase of the Alpha series . Some map units are made up of two or more major so ils or miscellaneous areas . These map units are complexes , associat ion s, or und ifferentiated groups . A comple x consists of two or more soils or m iscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps . The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscella neous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex , 0 to 6 percent slopes , is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one un it on the maps . Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area , it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately . The pattern and relat ive proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar . Alpha - Beta association , 0 to 2 percent slopes , is an e xample. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform . An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas , or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils , 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous are.as . Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 _. ........ -----------~ Custom So il Resource Report Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 46-Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation : 5,000 to 6,500 feet Map Unit Composition Nihill and similar soils: 85 percent Description of Nihill Setting Landform : Valley sides , alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape : Convex , linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Properties and qualities Slope : 1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class : Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0 .60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table : More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Gypsum, ma ximum content: 1 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 4 .0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Ecological site : Rolling Loam (R048AY298CO) Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Channery loam 11 to 18 inches : Very channery loam 18 to 60 inches : Stratified extremely channery sandy loam to extremely channery loam 47-Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation : 5,000 to 6,500 feet Map Unit Composition Nihill and similar soils: 85 percent • 12 • Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Nihill Setting Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Properties and qualities Slope : 6 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature : More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0 .60 to 6 .00 in/hr) Depth to water table : More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent Ma x imum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 6 e Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298CO) Typical profile 0 to 11 inches : Channery loam 11 to 18 inches: Very channery loam 18 to 60 inches : Stratified extreme ly channery sandy loam to extremely channery loam 62-Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep Map Unit Setting Elevation : 5,800 to 8 ,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Rock outcrop: 65 percent Torriorthents and similar soils: 30 percent Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Landform: Hillslopes , escarpments , plateaus Landform position (two-dimensiona l): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face Down-slope shape: Convex, concave Across-slope shape : Convex, concave 13 --------~-------~ Custom Soil Resource Report Parent material: Very stony colluvium derived from calcar~ous shale Properties and qualities Slope : 50 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature : 0 inches to paralithic bedrock Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0 .20 in/hr) Available water capacity: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 8s Typical profile 0 to 60 inches : Unweathered bedrock Description of Torriorthents Setting Landform: H illslopes , plateaus Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimen sio nal): Free face Down-slope shap e : Convex Across-slope shape : Convex Parent m a terial : Alluvium derived from calcareous shale Properties and qualities Slope : 50 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature : 4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage cl ass : Well drained Capacity of th e most limiting layer to transmit w a ter (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0 .06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table : More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding : None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium c arbonate , max imum content: 5 percent Ma x imum salinity: Nonsaline (0 .0 to 2 .0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 8e Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Variable 4 to 30 in ch es : Fine sandy loam 30 to 34 in ches: Unweathered bedrock 65-Torrifluvents, nearly level Map Unit Setting Elevation : 5,000 to 7 ,000 feet Mean annual precipitation : 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature : 46 to 48 degrees F • 14 • ~---------------~ • Custom Soil Resource Report Frost-free period: 90 to 120 days Map Unit Composition Torrifluvents and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components : 15 percent Description of Torrifluvents Setting Landform: Distributaries , rivers , flood plains Down-slope shape: Linear, co nvex Across-slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Alluvium Properties and qual ities Slope: O to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature : More than 80 inches Drainage class : Moderately well drained Capacity of the m ost limiting lay er to tran smit wate r (Ksat): Moderately h igh to high (0.60 to 2 .00 in/hr) Depth to water table : About 12 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding : Occasio nal Frequen cy of p onding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum co n te nt: 5 percent Gyps um, ma ximum content: 1 pe rcent Ma x imum salinity: No nsaline to sl ightly sal ine (2 .0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm ) Sodium adsorption ratio, m ax imum : 2 .0 Available water capa city: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land c apability (n onirriga ted): 7w Typical profile 0 to 36 inches : Loam 36 to 60 in ches: Sand Minor Componen ts Wann Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Fl uvaquents Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Marshes 15 ------------------~ Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the so il map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map un it components . This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation . Building Site Development Building s ite development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes . As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not cons ider present land use. Example interpretat ions can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations , dwellings with and without basements , small commercial buildings , local roads and streets , and lawns and landscaping . Corrosion of Concrete "Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content , texture, moisture content , and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of so il or with in one soil layer. The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate ," or "high ." • 16 • • 39· 30' 11 " • • 39"29'44" 0 0 "' ~ "' 0 0 ~ M "' g M ~ "' 0 0 N "' .... M "' 0 0 ~ "' g 0 ~ M "' g "' "' ~ "' 747100 747 100 N A ~-------------.....- Custom Soil Resource Report Map-Corrosion of Concrete 747200 747300 747400 747200 747300 747400 Map Scale : 1 :3 ,900 ~pri nted on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") sheet ---===------======Meters 0 35 70 140 210 ---===-----====::::iFeet 0 100 200 400 600 • 747500 747600 747500 747600 0 0 "' ~ M "' g M ~ M "' 0 0 N "' .... M "' 0 0 0 0 0 ~ M "' 0 0 ~ ~ "' 39• 30' 10'' 39" 29' 44" MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (A OI ) 0 Area of Interest (AOI) Soils O Soil Map Units Soil Ratings D High D Moderate CJ Low Not rated or not avai lable Politica l Features 0 Cities D D PLSS Township and Range PLSS Section Water Features EJ Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails """' ~ .·"'-..:.• ~ Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report MA P INFORMATIO N Map Scale : 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8 .5 " x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24 ,000 . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http ://websoilsurvey .nrcs .usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed be low. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfie ld and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25 , 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2 /1993 ; 9/21 /19 93 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably diffe rs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a resu lt, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • ---------------~- Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Concrete-Summary by Map Unit-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol I Map unit name I Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 I Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes I High 17.9 47 I Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes I High 31.4 62 65 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex , very steep Torrifluvents, nearly level 14.3 Moderate 1.2 Totals for Area o f Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Corrosion of Concrete Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Higher Corrosion of Steel "Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution , acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low ," "moderate," or "high." e 19 e 27.6% 48 .5% 22 .1% 1.8% 100.0% a, 0 747100 39• 30' 11 " 0 ~ <O .... "' • ... 0 0 le "' ... • 39 °29'44" N A ~---------------~ • 747200 Custom Soil Resource Report Map-Corrosi on of Steel 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 ff printed on A size (8 .5" x 11 ")sheet ---===------======Meters 0 35 70 14 0 210 ---==:::::11-----====:=Feet 0 100 200 400 600 747500 747600 39· 30' 10" 0 0 N <O .... "' ... 0 0 ;o .... "' ... 39 • zg 44" -------------------- MAP LEGEND A r ea of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI ) Soils D Soil Map Units Soll Ratings l!'.ZI High D Mode rate D Low Not rated or not avai lable Po l itical Features <!I D D Cities PLSS Township and Range PLSS Section Water Features G Oceans .~-~--.. Str ea ms and Ca nal s Transp ortatio n ++-+' Ra ils ,,,,..,,, Interstate High w ays .,,,...,.. US Routes Major Roa ds ~ Lo ca l Road s Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION Map Scale : 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soi l surveys that comprise your AO I were mapped at 1 :24,000 . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements . Source of Map : Natura l Resources Conservat ion Service Web Soi l Survey URL : http ://websoilsurvey .nrcs .usda .gov Coordinate System : UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed be low. Soil Survey Area : Rifle Area, Co lorado , Parts of Garfie ld and Mesa Count ies Survey Area Data : Version 6, Mar 25 , 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/2 1/19 93 The orth ophoto or oth er base map on which the so il lines were compiled and dig itized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps . As a result , some minor shifting of map un it boundaries may be evident. • • ·---------------~- Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Corrosion of Steel Corrosion of Steel-Summary by Map Unit -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent slopes High 17 .9 47 Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes High 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex , very steep 14.3 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level High 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Corrosion of Steel Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Higher Land Classifications Land Classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are assigned to soil areas because combinat ions of soil have sim ilar behavior for specified practices . Most are based on so il properties and other factors that directly influence the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site classification , farmland classification , irrigated and nonirrigated land capabil ity classificat ion, and hydric rating . Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site An "ecological site ID" is the symbol assigned to a particular ecological site . An "ecological site" is the product of all the environmental factors respons ible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time ; a characteristic hydrology , particularly infiltration and runoff, that has developed over time ; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The vegetat ion, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated . Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others . For example , the hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The plant community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. Descriptions of ecological sites are provided in the Field Office Technical Guide, which is ava ilable in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service . • 22 • 27 .6% 48 .5% 22 .1% 1.8% 100.0% ' Custom So il Resource Report e p-Ecological Site ID : NRCS Rangeland Site 39• 30' 11 " 39 ' 30' 10'' 0 0 0 0 N N :e <D ,._ "' "' .., .., • 0 0 0 0 co co ,._ ,._ "' "' .., .., • 39'29'44" Map Scale : 1 :3 ,900 ~ prtnted on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") sheet N ---c:==------c:=====Meters A 0 35 70 140 210 ---===-----====:::::i Feet 0 100 200 400 600 MAP L EG EN D Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AO/) Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings D R048AY298CO Not rated or not available Political Featu res 0 Cities 0 PLSS Township and Range O PLSS Section Water Features O Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +H. Rails """' /\..-' ~~:,... -··· ~ Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Cust o m Soil Resource Report MA P INFOR MA T ION Map Scale: 1 :3,9 00 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet . The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24 ,000 . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natura l Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data : Version 6, Mar 25 , 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probab ly differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • ·--------------~ Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site-Summary by Map Unit-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes R048A Y298CO 17 .9 47 Ni hill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes R048AY298CO 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very 14 .3 steep 65 Torrifluvents , nearly level 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site Class: NRCS Rangeland Site Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Lower Land Management Land management interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in evaluating existing conditions in planning and predicting the soil response to various land management practices, for a variety of land uses , including cropland, forestland, hayland, pastureland , horticulture, and rangeland . Example interpretations include suitability for a variety of irrigation practices , log landings, haul roads and major skid trails, equipment operability , site preparation, suitability for hand and mechanical planting, potential erosion hazard associated with various practices, and ratings for fencing and waterline installation . Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface) The ratings in this interpretation indicate the suitability for use of surface-altering soil tillage equipment during site preparation in forested areas . The ratings are based on slope , depth to a restrictive layer, plasticity index, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding . The part of the soil from the surface to a depth of about 1 foot is considered in the ratings . The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms ind icate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. The soils are described as "well suited ," "poorly suited," or "unsuited" to this management activity . "Well suited" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified kind of site preparation and has no limitations . Good performance can be expected , and little or no maintenance is needed . "Poorly suited" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified kind of site preparation . • 25 • 27.6% 48.5 % 22.1% 1.8% 100.0% • • • • • Custom Soil Resource Report Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design , extra maintenance, and costly alteration . "Unsuited" indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified kind of si te preparation or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations . The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00 . They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1 .00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0 .00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen . An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presen ted to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the ra t ing presented . Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components , regardless of the map unit aggregated rating , can be v iewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site . Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site . 26 747100 39• 30' 11" 0 0 "' <O ,._ M • ... 0 0 ;;; ,._ M ... • 39°29'44" N A e Custom Soil Resource Report e Map-Mechanical Si te Preparation (Surface) 747200 747300 747400 747500 747400 747500 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 ~printed on A size (8 .5" x 11 ")sheet ---===------======Meters 0 35 70 140 210 ---===------=====Feet 0 100 200 400 600 747600 0 ~ <O ~ ... 0 0 ;;; ,._ M ... 747600 MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (A OI ) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings ~ Unsuited D Poorly suited O Wellsuited Not rated or not availab le Po litica l Features 0 Cities D D PLSS Townsh ip and Range PLSS Section Wate r Features 1.2] Oceans Streams and Canals Transpo rtation -+:++ Rails -.... .,,,. ;A,..- Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report MAP I NFORMATION Map Scale : 1 :3,9 00 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soi l Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NA D83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data : Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date (s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps . As a result , some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • ...... __________ _ Custom Soil Resource Report Tables-Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface) Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface)-Summary by Map Unit-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit Map unit name Rating Component name Rating reasons Acres in symbol (percent) (numeric AOI values) 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 Well suited Nihill (85%) 17.9 percent slopes 47 Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 Poorly suited Nihill (85%) Slope (0 .50) 31.4 percent slopes 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents Unsuited Rock outcrop (65%) Slope (1 .00) 14.3 complex , very steep Torriorthents (30 %) Slope (1.00) 65 Torrifluvents , nearly level Well suited Torrifluvents (85 %) 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface)-Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Poorly suited 31.4 Well suited 19 .0 Unsu ited 14.3 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 1 Rating Options-Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Higher • 29 e Percent of AOI 27 .6% 48 .5% 22 .1% 1.8% 100.0% 48 .5% 29.4 % 22 .1% 100.0% • • Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components . This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured , but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties . Example soil qualities include natural drainage , and frost action . Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer A "restrictive layer" is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical , chemical , or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock , cemented layers , dense layers , and frozen layers . This theme presents the depth to any type of restrictive layer that is described for each map unit. If more than one type of restrictive layer is described for an individual soil type , the depth to the shallowest one is presented. If no restrictive layer is described in a map unit, it is represented by the "> 200" depth class . This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of th is attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute forthe component. For this soil property , only the representative value is used . 30 -----------------~ • Custom Soi l Resource Report • Map-Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer 747100 747200 747300 747400 747500 747600 39" 30' 11 " 39" 30' 10'' e 39·29·44 .. 747100 747200 747300 747400 747500 747600 39 " 2g 44" Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 W printed on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") sheet N ---===------======Meters A 0 35 70 140 21 0 ---===------====::::::iFeet 0 100 200 400 600 MAP LEGEND Area of Inter est (A OI ) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings 00 0-25 o 25-50 o 50-100 D 100 -150 D 150-200 [l]iiJ > 200 Political Fe atu res 0 D D Cities PLSS Township and Range PLSS Section Water Features [[IJ Oceans .-~ Streams and Canals Transportation -t!+ Rails .....,,. Interstate Highways ,,,.,_,, US Routes Major Roads _;:;;;:.; Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION Map Sca le: 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8 .5" " 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24 ,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements . Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL : http ://websoilsurvey.nrcs .u sda .gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. So il Survey Area: Rifle Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfie ld and Mesa Counties Survey A rea Data : Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery disp layed on these maps . As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • .. --------------~ Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer-Summary by Map Unit-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit Map unit name Rating (centimeters) I Acres in AOl I Percent of AOI symbol 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent 1>200 17.9 slopes 47 I Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent 1>200 I 31.4 1 slopes 62 I Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, I O I 14 .3 I very steep 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level >200 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer Units of Measure: centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Drainage Class "Drainage class (natural)" refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the water regime by human activities , either through drainage or irrigation , are not a consideration unless they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized-excessively drained , somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained , poorly drained, and very poorly drained . These classes are defined in the "Soil Survey Manual." • 33 • 27 .6% 48.5% 22 .1% 1.8% 100.0% • 39• 30' 11 " • • 39"29'44" 0 0 "' ~ ,,. 0 0 "' ~ "' ,,. 0 0 ~ "' ,,. 0 0 ~ ,,. g "' "' "" "' ,,. g CD "' ::; ,,. 747100 747100 N A 747200 747200 Custom So il R esou rce Report Map-Dra inage Class 747300 747400 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 W printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ")sheet ---===------=====:::::i Meters 0 35 70 140 2 10 --111:==:1111-----=====::::i Fee t 0 100 200 400 600 747500 747600 747500 747600 0 0 ~ ::; ,,. 0 0 "' ~ "' ,,. 0 0 ~ "' ,,. 0 0 0 ~ "' ,,. 0 0 :ii ::; ,,. 0 0 :ll ::; ,,. 39 • 3 0' 10'' 39' 29' 44 " MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Soll Ratings ~ Excessively drained EJ Somewhat excessively drained D Well drained D Moderately well drained D Somewhat poorly drained 85'1 Poorly drained m Very poorly drained Not rated or not available Political Features o Cities D D PLSS Township and Range PLSS Section Water Features w Oceans ,.._~ Streams and Canals Transportation +.+.; Rails -,,,..._,, Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads & Custom Soil Resource Report Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8.5" >< 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24 ,000 . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: hltp:l/websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25 , 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps . As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. e e .......... ___________ _ Custom Soil Resource Report Table-· Drainage Class Drainage Class-Summary by Map Unit -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent slopes Well drained 17.9 47 Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent sl opes Well drained 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very 14 .3 steep 65 Torrifluvents , nearly level Moderately well drained 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Drainage Class Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Higher Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet , and receive precipitation from long- duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A , B, C , and D) and three dual classes (AID , B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows : Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands . These soils have a high rate of water transmission . Group B . Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep , moderately well dra ined or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture . These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission . Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture . These soils have a slow rate of water transmission . Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist ch iefly of clays that have a high shr ink-swell po tential , soils that have a high water table , soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the • 36 • 27 .6% 48.5% 22.1% 1.8% 100.0% • • • ~-----------------~ • • Custom Soil Resource Report surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID , BID , or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas . Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes . 37 --------------------~ 39• 30' 11 " • • 39"29'44" 0 0 "' ~ ... 0 0 ~ "' ... g "' <D ::; ... 0 0 N <D I'- "' ... 0 0 le "' ... 0 0 ~ "' ... 0 0 :li ::; ... 747100 747100 N A • 747200 747200 Custom So il Resource Report Map-Hydrologic Soil Group 747300 747400 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 ~printed on A size (8 .5" x 11 ")sheet ---c::==------c::=====Mete rs 0 35 70 140 210 ---===-----=====Fee t 0 100 200 400 600 747500 747600 39• 30' 10'' 39' 29' 44 " 747500 747600 MAP LEGEND A rea of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings [)j A D ND ~B D BID D c ~ CID E:] D Not rated or not available Politica l Features <!) Cities D D PLSS Township and Range PLSS Section Water Features m Oceans , . ..--" Streams and Canals Transportation ? Rails .....,,,, Interstate Highways _,....,., US Routes Major Roads .A;', Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Rep o rt MAP INFORMATION Map Scale : 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements . Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soi l Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda .gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the ve rsion date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area , Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data : Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soi l lines were compi led and digitized probab ly diffe rs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor sh ifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group-Summary by Map Unit-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes B 17.9 47 Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes B 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex , very steep D 14 .3 65 Torrifluvents , nearly level D 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Lower Representative Slope Slope gradient is the difference in elevation between two points , expressed as a percentage of the distance between those points . The slope gradient is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used . • 40 • 27.6% 48 .5% 22.1% 1.8% 100.0% 39' 30' 11 " • • 39'29'44" g "' "' ~ ... g ~ .., ... g .., ~ ... 0 0 N "' ,.._ .., ... 0 0 ~ ... g 0 :e .., ... 747100 747100 N A Custom Soil Resource Report Map-Representative Slope 747200 747300 747400 747200 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 'printed on A size (8 .5" x 11 ")sheet 0 35 70 140 ---===-----=====Feet 0 100 200 400 600 747500 747600 747500 747600 g ~ ... g .., :e .., ... 0 0 N "' ,.._ .., ... 0 0 ;o ,.._ .., ... g 0 :e .., ... 0 0 !ll ~ ... 39' 30' 10'' 39' 29' 44" MAP LEGEND Area o f In terest (AO I) D Area of Interest (AOI ) Solis D Soil Ma p Units Soil Ratings ~ 0-5 o 5-15 D 15-30 o 30-45 o 45-eo Not rated or not ava ilable Politic al Featu res 0 D D Cities PL SS Townsh ip and Range PLSS Section Water Features D . Ocean s Streams and Cana ls Transportatio n +f..+ Rails ......... ./\./ ~~·7 _,. ~ Interstate Highways US Route s Major Roads Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report MAP IN FORMATION Map Scal e: 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8 .5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24 ,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements . Source of Map : Natura l Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoi lsurvey .nrcs .usda .gov Coordinate System : UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed be low. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data : Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date (s) aerial images were photographed: 81211993; 912111993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compil ed and digitized probably differs from the backgrou nd imagery displayed on these maps . As a resu lt, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. e • Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Representative Slope Representative Slope--Summary by Map Unit -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (percent) Acres inAOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent slopes 4 .0 17.9 47 Nihill chann ery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes 16 .0 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very 65 .0 14 .3 steep 65 Torrifluvents , nearly level 3.0 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64 .8 Rating Options-Representative Slope Units of Measure: percent Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Higher Interpret Nulls as Zero : No Unified Soil Classification (Surface) The Unified soi l classification system classifies mineral and o rganic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis of particle-size characteristics , liquid limit , and plasticity index. It identifies three major soil divisions: (i) coarse-grained soils having less than 50 percent , by weight , particles smaller than 0.07 4 mm in diameter; (ii) fine- grained soils having 50 percent or more , by weight , part icles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; and (iii) highly organic soils that demonstrate certain organic characteristics . These divisions are further subdivided into a total of 15 basic soil groups. The major soil divisions and basic soil groups are determined on the basis of estimated or measured values for grain-size d istribution and Atterberg limits . ASTM D 2487 shows the criteria chart used for classifying so il in the Unified system and the 15 basic soil groups of the system and the plasticity chart for the Unified system . The various groupings of this classification correlate in a general way with the engineering behavior of soils . This correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory investigation for engineering purposes . It can serve to make some general interpretations relating to probable performance of the soil for engineering uses . For each soil horizon in the database one or more Unified soil classifications may be listed . One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring . The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil. • 43 e 27 .6% 48.5 % 22 .1% 1.8% 100.0% • 39• 30' 11 " • • 39°29'44" 0 0 "' ~ ... 0 0 "' ie "' ... 1o "' f-., ~ 747100 N A ~---------------~ • Custom Soil Res ource Report Map-Unified Soil Class ificat ion (Surface ) 747200 747300 747400 747500 Map Scale : 1 :3 ,900 ~printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ")sheet ---c:==------c:=====Meters 0 35 70 140 210 --llE==::1111-----=====::::i Feet 0 100 200 400 600 • 747600 0 0 ~ ... g "" "' ~ ... g "' "' ,_ "' ... 39• 30' 10'' 39• 29' 44" Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings CTI . CH Gil CL ~ CL-A (proposed) D CL-K (proposed) Bl CL-ML D CL-0 (proposed) ~ CL-T (proposed) D GC D GC-GM ~ GM ~ GP D GP-GC GP-GM ~ ~ GW ~ GW-GC ~ GW-GM D MH ~ MH-A {proposed) ~ MH-K (proposed) D MH-0 (p roposed ) LJ MH-T (proposed) MAP LEGEND ~ . ML Im! ML-A {propo se d) ~ ML-K {proposed) CJ ML-0 (proposed) G ML-T (proposed) D OH D OH-T (proposed) L3J OL EJ PT D SC ll8I SC-SM D SM l'.Tfl SP D SP-SC D SP-SM m SW ~ SW-SC CJ SW-SM Not rated or not ava ilable Political Features o Cities D PLSS Townsh ip and Range D PLSS Section Water Features @] Oceans Streams and Cana ls Custom Soil Resource Report Transportation +++ -,,,,...._,, . ....-........ .,,,...,, Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Lo cal Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale : 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8.5'' x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000 . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http ://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda .gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area : Rifle Area, Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s ) aeria l imag es were photographed: 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines we re compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps . As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident • • ......... __________ _ Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Unified Soil Classification (Surface) Unified Soil Classification (Surface)-Summary by Map Unit-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent slopes GC 17 .9 47 Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 perce nt slopes GC 31.4 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex , ve ry steep 14.3 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level CL-ML 1.2 Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 Rating Options-Unified Soil Classification (Surface) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: No ne Sp ecified Tie-bre ak Rule: Lower Layer Options : Surface Layer Water Features Water Features include ponding frequency , flooding frequency , and depth to water table . Depth to Water Table "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the so il. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone , namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property , only the representative value is used . 46 • e 27 .6 % 48.5% 22.1% 1.8% 100.0% • 39• 30' 11 " • • 39°29'44" g "' ~ ... g ~ .., 0 0 "' :e "' .., 0 0 N "' ~ 0 0 ;;; .... "' .., g 0 :e "' ... 0 0 O> "' ~ .., g "' "' .... "' ... 747100 747100 N A ~------------------- Custom Soil Resource Report Map-Depth to Water Table 747200 747300 747400 747200 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 ~p ri nted on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") slieet ---===------======Meters 0 35 70 140 210 ---===-----=====rFeet 0 100 200 400 600 • 747500 747600 747500 747600 b g "' ~ .., g ~ "' ... g "' :e "' .., 0 0 N "' .... "' ... 0 0 ;;; .... "' .., 0 0 ~ ... 0 0 O> "' ~ .., 39• 30' 10" 39' 29' 44" ........... ----------~ MAP LEGEND A rea of Interest (AOI ) O Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 Soil Map Units Soil Ratings ~ 0-25 o 25-50 o 50-100 o 100-150 D 150-200 !21 > 200 Po l itical Features 0 Cities D D PLSS Township and Range PLS S Section Water Features El Oceans ...... ..__... Streams and Canals Transportation ++.+ Rails - ./\./ Interstate Highways US Ro utes . -~. Major Roads ..;..;:. Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report MAP IN FORMATION Map Scale: 1 :3,900 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AO! were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http ://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda .gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data : Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed : 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs fro m the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Depth to Water Table Depth to Water Table-Summary by Map Unit -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit Map unit name Rating (centimeters) Acres in ADI Percent of ADI sy m bol 46 Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent >200 17.9 27.6% slopes 47 Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent >2 00 3 1.4 48 .5% slopes 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthenls complex , >200 14 .3 22.1% very sleep 65 Torrifluvenls , nearly level 61 1.2 1.8% Totals for Area of Interest 64.8 100.0% 49 • • ~-------------...._ • • • Custom Soil Resource Report Rating Options-Depth to Water Table Units of Measure : centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule : Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero : No Beginning Month : January Ending Month: December Flooding Frequency Class • Flooding is the temporary inundation of an a rea caused by overflowing streams , by runoff from adjacent slopes , or by tides . Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding , and water standing in swamps an d marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding . Frequency is expressed as none, very rare , rare , occasional , frequent , and very frequent. "None" means that flooding is not probable. The chance of flooding is nearly 0 percent in any year. Flooding occurs less than once in 500 years . "Very rare" means that flooding is very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions . The chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any ye a r. "Rare" means that flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather co nditions. The chance of flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year. "Occasional" means that flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather condit ions . The chance of flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any year. "Frequent" means that flooding is likely to occu r often under normal weather conditions . The chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in any year. "Very frequent" means that flooding is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions . The chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year . 50 • 747 100 39' 30' 11" 0 0 N "' ... "' • ... 0 0 ;o ... "' ... • 39'29'44" N A ~--------------... ·--• 747200 Custom Soil Resource Report Map-Flooding F requency Class 747300 747400 Map Scale: 1 :3 ,900 ~p rinted on A size (8.5" x 11 ")sheet ---===------======Me te rs 0 35 70 140 2 10 ---===------=====Feet 0 100 200 400 600 • 747500 747600 39' 30' 10" 0 0 N "' ... "' ... 0 0 ;o ... "' ... 39' 29' 44" _. ...... ----------~- MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) 0 Area of Interest (AOI) Soils D Soil Map Units Soil Ratings [3] None D Very Rare D Rare D Occasional CJ Frequent ITJ Very Frequent Political Features 0 Cities D D PLSS Township and Range PLS S Section Water Features c:J Oceans --~ Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails - /"V Interstate Highways US Routes . "··· Major Roads /V Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :3,900 if printed on .A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000 . Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda .g ov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of t11e version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6 , Mar 25 , 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/2/1993; 9/21/1993 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • • Custom Soil Resource Report Table-Flooding Frequency Class Flooding Frequency Class-Summary by Map Unit -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating 46 Nihill channery loam. 1 to 6 percent slopes None 47 Nihill channery loam . 6 to 25 percent slopes None 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex. very None steep 65 Torrifluvents . nearly level Occasional Totals for Area of Interest Rating Options-Flooding Frequency Class Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: More Frequent Beginning Month: January Ending Month : December 53 • Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 17 .9 27.6 % 31.4 48 .5 % 14 .3 22 .1% 1 .2 1.8% 64.8 100.0% • ~----------------~ ~---------------~ • • Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected so il map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings . Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretat ions can include corrosion of concrete and steel , shallow excavations , dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets , and lawns and landscaping. Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping Soil properties influence the development of building sites , including the se lection of the site, the design of the structure , construction , performance after construction , and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets , shallow excavations , and lawns and landscaping . The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected . Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning , design , or installation . Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use . The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation , special design , or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0 .01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0 .00). Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel , 54 ---------------------- ....... ___________ ~ Custom Soil Resource Report crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement ; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a b inder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic-supporting capacity . The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan , depth to a water table, ponding , flooding , the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic-supporting capacity are soil streng t h (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence , linear extensibil ity (shrink-swell potential), the potential for frost action , depth to a water table , and pond ing. Shallow ex cavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves , utility lines, open ditches , or other purposes . The ratings are based on the soil properties that i nfluence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan , hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan , the amount of large stones , and dense layers influence the ease of digging , filling , and compacting . Depth to the seasonal high water table , flooding , and ponding may restr ict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery . Soil texture , depth to the water table , and linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained . Irrigation is not conside red in the rat i ngs . The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established . The properties that affect plant growth are reaction ; depth to a water table ; ponding ; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan ; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts , sodium , or calcium carbonate ; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect traffi.cability are flooding, depth to a water table , pond ing , slope , stoniness, and the amount of sand , clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning , for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construct ion . The information , however, has lim itations. For example, est imates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale , small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table . Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning , in site selection , and in des ign. Report-Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site . The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] 55 • e • • Custom Soil Resource Report Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations,.and Lawns and Landscaping-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map symbol and soil Pct. of Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Lawns and landscaping name map unit Rating class and Value Rating class and Value Rating class and limiting features limiting features limiting features 46--Nihill channery loam , 1 to 6 percent slopes Ni hill 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Frost action 0.50 Cutbanks cave 0.10 Draughty Large stones content 0.05 Large stones content 0.05 Large stones content Gravel content 47-Nihill channery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes .. Ni hi ll 85 Very limited Ve ry limited Very limi ted Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope Frost action 0.50 Cutbanks cave 0.10 Draughty Large stones content 0.05 Large stones content 0.05 Larg e stones content Gravel content 62-Rock outcrop- Torriorthents complex , very steep Rock outcrop 65 Not rated Not rated Not rated Torriorthents 30 Very limited Very limited Not rated Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Depth to hard bedrock 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 65-Torrifluvents, nearly level Torrifl uvents 85 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited Floo ding 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding zone Depth to saturated 0.19 Cutbanks cave 1.00 Depth to saturated zone zone Flo oding 0.60 Salinity Land Classifications This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present a variety of soil groupings. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Land classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behavior for specified practices . Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly influence the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site classification , farmland classification , irrigated and nonirrigated land capability classification, and hydric rating. 56 Value 0.70 0 .54 0.04 1.0 0 0.70 0.54 0 .04 0.6 0 0 .19 0.13 Custom Soil Resource Report Taxonomic Classification of the Soils The system of soil classification used by the National Cooperative Soil Survey has six categories (Soil Survey Staff, 1999 and 2003). Beginning with the broadest , these categories are the order, suborder, great group , subgroup , family , and series. Classification is based on soil properties observed in the field or i nferred from those observations or from laboratory measurements . This table shows the classification of the soils in the survey area . The categories are defined in the following paragraphs . ORDER. Twelve soil orders are recognized . The differences among orders reflect the dominant soil-forming processes and the degree of soil formation . Each order is identified by a word ending in sol. An example is Alfisols . SUBORDER. Each order is divided into suborders pr imarily on the basis of properties that influence soil genesis and are important to plant growth or properties that reflect the most important variables within the orders . The last syllable in the name of a suborder ind icates the order. An example is Udalfs ( Ud , meaning humid , plus alfs, from Alfisols). GREAT GROUP . Each suborder is divided into great groups on the basis of close similarities in kind , arrangement , and degree of development of pedogenic horizons ; soil moisture and temperature regimes ; type of satu ration ; and base status. Each great group is identified by the name of a suborder and by a prefix that indicates a property of the soil. An example is Hapludalfs (Hap/, meaning m inimal horizonation , plus udalfs, the suborder of the Alfisols that has a ud ic moisture regime). SUBGROUP . Each great group has a typic subgroup. Other subgroups are intergrades or extragrades . The typic subgroup is the central concept of the great group ; it is not necessarily the most extensive . lntergrades are transitions to other orders , suborders, or great groups . Extragrades have some properties that are not representative of the great group but do not indicate transitions to any other taxonomic class. Each subgroup is identified by one or more adjectives preceding the name of the great group . The adjective Typic identifies the subgroup that typifies the great group. An example is Typic Hapludalfs . FAMILY. Families are established within a subgroup on the basis of physical and chemical properties and other characteristics that affect management. Generally , the properties are those of horizons below plow depth where there is much biological activity. Among the properties and characteristics considered are particle-size class, mineralogy class , cation-exchange activity class , soil temperature reg ime , soil depth , and reaction class. A family name consists of the name of a subgroup preceded by terms that indicate soil properties . An example is fine-loamy , m ix ed , active, mesic Typic Hapludalfs . SERIES . The series consists of soils within a family that have horizons similar in color, texture, structure, reaction, consistence , mineral and chemical composition , and arrangement in the profile. References : Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil class ification for making and interpreting soil surveys . 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service . U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy . 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. (The soils in a given survey area may have been classified according to earl ier editions of this publicat ion .) • 57 • ~------------------ Ni hill Rock outcrop Torrifluvents Torri orthents • Custom Soil Resource Report Report-Taxonomic Classification of the Soils [An asterisk by the soil name indicates a taxadjunct to the series) Taxonomic Classification of the Soils-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Soil name Family or higher taxonomic classification Loamy-skel etal , mixed (calcareou s), mesi c Ustic Torriorthe nts Torrifluvents Torri orth ents Soil Chemical Properties This folde r contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil chemical properties . The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil chem ical properties are meas ured or infe rred from d irect observations in the field or laboratory . Examples of soil chem ical pro pe rt ies include pH , cation exchange capacity , calcium carbonate , gypsum , and e lectrical conductivity. Chemical Soil Properties This table shows estimates of some chemica l character istics and features t hat affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area . The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these a nd similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is ind icated . Cation -exchange capacity is the total amount of extractable cations that can be held by the soil , expressed in terms of mill iequival e nt s per 100 grams of soil at neut rality (pH 7.0) or at some other stated pH value . Soils having a low cation-e xchange capacity hold fewer cations and may require more freq uent applications of fertilizer than soils having a high cation-e xchange capacity . The ability to retain cations reduces the hazard of ground -water pollution . Effective cation-exchange capacity refers to the sum of extractable cations plus aluminum expressed i n terms of m illiequivalents per 100 grams of soil. It is determined for soils that have pH of less than 5.5. Soil reaction is a measure of acidity or alkalinity . It is important in selecting crops and other plants , in evaluating soil amendments for fertil ity and stabilization , and in determin i ng the risk of corrosion . Calcium carbonate equivalent is the percent of carbonates , by we ight , in the fract ion of the soil less than 2 m illimeters in size . The availability of plant nutrients is influenced by the amount of carbonates in the soil. Gypsum is expressed as a percent , by weight , of hydrated calc ium sulfates in the fract ion of the soil less than 20 millimeters in siz e. Gypsum is partially soluble in water. 58 -----------------~- Custom Soil Resource Report Soils that have a high content of gypsum may collapse if the gypsum is removed by percolating water. Salinity is a measure of soluble salts in the soil at saturation. It is expressed as the electrical conductivity of the saturation extract, in millimhos per centimeter at 25 degrees C. Estimates are based on field and laboratory measurements at representative sites of nonirrigated soils. The salinity of irrigated soils is affected by the quality of the irrigation water and by the frequency of water application. Hence, the salinity of soils in individual fields can differ greatly from the value given in the table. Salinity affects the suitability of a soil for crop production , the stability of soil if used as construction material, and the potential of the soil to corrode metal _and concrete. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is a measure of the amount of sodium (Na) relative to calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in the water extract from saturated soil paste. It is the ratio of the Na concentration divided by the square root of one-half of the Ca+ Mg concentration. Soils that have SAR values of 13 or more may be characterized by an increased dispersion of organic matter and clay particles , reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity and aeration , and a general degradation of soil structure. e 59 • Custom Soil Resource Report Chemical Soil Properties-Rifle Area, Colorado , Parts of Garfie ld and Mesa Counties Map symbol and soil name Depth Cation-Effective Soil reaction Calcium Gypsum Salinity Sodium exchange cation-carbonate adsorption ratio capacity exchange capacity In meq/100g meql100g pH Pct Pct mm hos/cm 46-Nihili channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes . Ni hill 0-11 5.0-20 -7.4-8.4 1-5 0 0.0-2.0 0 11-18 5.0-15 -7.4-8.4 1-5 0-1 0.0-4 .0 0 • 18-60 5.0-15 -7.4-8.4 5-1 5 0-1 0.0-4 .0 0 47-Nihili channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes Ni hill 0-11 5.0-20 -7.4-8.4 1-5 0 0.0-2.0 0 11-18 5.0 -1 5 -7.4-8.4 1-5 0-1 0.0-4 .0 0 18-60 5.0-15 -7.4-8.4 5-15 0-1 0.0-4.0 0 62 -Rock outcrop -Torriorthents complex , very steep Rock outcrop 0-60 -----0 - Torriorthents 0-4 --6.1-8.4 0-5 0 0.0-2 .0 0 4-30 5.0-20 -6.1-8.4 0-5 0 0.0-2 .0 0 30-34 - ------.. 65-Torrifluvents, nearly level T orrifluvents 0-36 5.0-15 -7.9-8.4 1-5 0-1 2.0-8.0 0-2 • 36 -60 0.0-5 .0 -7.9-8.4 1-5 0-1 0.0-2 .0 0-2 60 • Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Physical Properties This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil physical properties. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil physical properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity , and bulk density. Physical Soil Properties This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area . The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation , sieving , or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand , silt , and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller. Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In this table , the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage , by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0 .002 to 0 .05 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage , by weight , of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. In this table , the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage , by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of sand , silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations , for determination of soil hydrologic qualities , and for soil classification . The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the abil ity of the soil to adsorb cations and to reta in moisture. They influence shrink- swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity , the ease of soil dispersion , and other soil properties . The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume . Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity , that is, the moisture content at 1/3-or 1110- bar (33kPa or 1 OkPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential , available water capacity, total pore space , and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots . • 61 • ~------------------· .. • • Custom Soil Resource Report Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture , kind of clay , content of organic matter, and soil structure. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure , porosity, and texture . Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields . Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants . The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies , depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter , soil texture, bulk density , and soil structure . Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quant ity of water actually available to plants at any given time. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3-or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or 1 OkPa tension) and oven dryness . The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils . The shrink- swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3 , shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition . In this table , the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight , of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity , water infiltration , soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor (Kw and Kf) and the T factor. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average ann ual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69 . Other factors being equal , the higher the va l ue, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments . Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. 62 ........ ------------~ Custom Soil Resource Report Erosion factor Tis an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period . The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible . The groups are described in the "National Soil Survey Handbook." Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods , rock fragments , organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion . Reference : United States Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov) 63 • • Cus tom So il Resource Report Physical Soil Properties-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map symbol Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion fact ors Wi nd Wi n d and soil name bulk hydra u lic wat er extens i b ility matter erodlbll ity erodibllit y density conductivity capac it y Kw Kf T group In dex In Pct Pct Pct glee micro ml sec In/In Pct Pc t 46-Nih ill chann ery lo am, 1 to6 percent slopes Nihill 0-11 -43--39-10-19-27 1.25-1 .40 4 .23-42 .34 0.10-0.13 0.0-2 .9 0.5-1.0 .20 .3 7 1 4L 86 • 11-18 -42--37-15-21 -27 1.25-1.40 4 .23-42.34 0.07-0.09 0.0-2.9 0.0-0 .5 .15 .43 18-60 --15-21 -27 1.25-1.50 4.23 -42 .34 0.03-0.05 0.0-2.9 0.0-0 .5 .05 .32 47-Nihi ll chann ery loam. 6 to 25 percent slopes Ni hill 0-11 -43- -39-10-19-27 1.25-1.40 4 .23-42.34 0.10-0.13 0.0-2.9 0.5-1 .0 .20 .37 1 4L 86 11-18 -42 --37 -15-21 -27 1.25-1.40 4 .23-42 .34 0.07-0.09 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .15 .43 18-60 --15-21-27 1.25-1.50 4 .23 -42 .34 0.03 -0.05 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .05 .32 62-Rock outcrop- Torriorthents complex , very steep Rock outcrop 0-60 --0-0-0 -0.00-1.40 0.00 --8 0 Torriorthents 0-4 ----1.40-42.00 0.04-0 .18 -0.5-1 .0 • 4-30 -61--19-5-20-35 1.30-1.50 4.23-14 .11 0.10-0.18 0.0-2.9 0 .0-0 .5 .32 .32 30-34 ----0.42-1.41 --- 65--- Torrifluvents . nearly leve l To rrifluvents 0-36 -42 --38 -15-21 -26 1.35-1.40 4.23-14 .11 0.16-0.20 0.0-2.9 0 .5-1 .0 .37 .37 3 4L 86 36-60 -97--2-0-2-3 1.50-1.65 141 .14-705 .00 0.04-0 .06 0.0-2 .9 0.0-0 .5 .20 .20 64 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Qualities and Features This folder contains tabular reports that present various soil qual ities and features . The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured , but are inferred from observations of dynamic condit ions and from soil propert ies . Example soil qualities include natural drainage , and frost act io n. So il features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Soil Features This table gives est imates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical , chemical , or thermal properties that s ignificantly impede the movement of water and a ir through the so il or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock , cemented layers , dense layers , and frozen layers . The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which s ignificantly affect the ease of excavation . Depth to top is the vert ical d istance from the so il surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive layer. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage , or oxidation of organic material , or both, following drainage . Subsidence takes place gradually , usually over a period of several years . The table shows the expected initial subsidence , which usually is a result of drainage , and total subsidence, which results from a combination of factors. Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing . Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature , texture , density , saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured , clayey soils that have a h igh water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action . Well drained , very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible . Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures. Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture , part icle-size distribution , acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content , texture , moisture content , and ac id ity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion . The steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel 65 e • ~----------------·~ • • Custom Soil Resource Report or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. For uncoated steel , the risk of corrosion , expressed as /ow , moderate , or high, is based on soil drainage class , total acidity , electrica l resistiv ity near field capacity , and electrical conductivity of the saturation ext ract. For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as /ow, moderate , or high . It is based on soil texture, acidity , and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract. 66 _.... ........ ------------ Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Features-Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map symbol and Restrictive Layer Subsidence Potential for frost Risk of corrosion soil name action Kind Depth to Thickness Hardness Initial Total Uncoated steel Concrete top In In In In 46-Nihill channery loam , 1to6 percent slopes • Nihill --0 -Moderate High High 47-Nihill channery loam. 6 to 25 percent slopes Nihill --0 -Moderate High High 62-Rock outcrop- Torriorthents complex, very steep Rock outcrop Paralithic bedrock 0 -Moderately 0 -None cemented Torriorthents Lithic bedrock 4-30 -lndurated 0 -Low High Low 65-Torrifluvents, nearly level Torrifluvents --0 -Low High Moderate • 67 ~--------------... ~ • • References American Association of State Highway and T ransportatio n Officials (AASHTO). 2004 . Standard specifications for transportation materials a nd methods of sampl ing and testing . 24th edition . American Society for Test ing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classificat ion of soils for engineering purposes . ASTM Stan d ard D2487-00 . Cowardin , L.M., V . Carter, F.C. Golet , and E.T. LaRoe . 1979. Class ification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the Uni t ed States . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31 . Federal Register. July 13 , 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States . Federal Register. September 18 , 2002 . Hyd ric soils of the United States . Hurt , G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors . Versio n 6 .0 , 2006 . Field ind icators of hydric soils in the United States . National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands : Chara cteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service . U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18 . http ://soils .usda .gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 1999 . Soil taxonomy : A bas ic system of soil classification for making and interp reting soil surveys . 2nd edit ion . Na t u ral Resources Conservation Service , U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436 . http://soils.usda .gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006 . Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service . http://soils .usda .gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control , Wetlands Section . United States Army Corps of Engineers , Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87 -1. United States Department of Agriculture , Natu ral Resources Conservat ion Service . National forestry manual. http://soils .usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natura l Resources Conservation Service . National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservat ion Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. htt p://soils .usda .gov/ United States Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean , and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296 . http://soils.usda.gov/ 68 _.. ........... ----------- Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service . 1961 . Land capability classification . U.S . Department of Agriculture Handbook 210 . 69 • • ~---------------·~ • • GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS REPORT ~.OLSSON PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ASSOCIATES LAYDOWN YARD Surficial Geology and Soils The surficial geology of the subject property is shown on Figure 1. The location for the proposed Laydown Yard is underlain by Quaternary-age gravels and alluvium . The location for the proposed facility is on the northern half of an alluvial fan that has developed at the base of a drainage from the plateau to the east of the location (Figure 2). The alluvial material in this fan is derived from the sandstone and shale of the cliffs and plateau to the east of the location and is the parent material for the soils that occur at this location. Figure 3 provides a soils map for the location of the proposed facility . The location for the proposed laydown yard is underlain by soils of the Nihill Channery loam , 6 to 25 percent slopes (soil unit 47 on Figure 3) This soi l is a well drained channery to extremely channery loam that extends to depths of about 60 inches. Limitations of these soils in relation to the proposed project are discussed in detail below. Geologic and Soil Hazards The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils report for this area provides information regarding the suitability or limitations of these soils for the proposed use -shallow excavations , roads and mechanical site preparation . The primary limitations identified by the NRCS for shallow excavations are based on the slopes and , to a lesser extent , the potential for cutbanks to cave and t he large stones content of the soils . The limitations associated with construction of roads and mechanical site preparation are similar, based primarily on the slope of the land with lesser limitations associated with large stones content and potential for frost action. These soils have a moderate infiltration rate which reduces runoff potential and have a negligible frequency of floods (less than once every 500 years). Based on the proposed use and design for the facility, the limitations of the soils at the location should have very little , if any , impact on the facility . The NRCS also identifies these soils as having very limited capability for landscaping due to high gravel content and the draughty nature of this area . This limitation will need to be considered in the design and implementation of any landscaping for this facility. The proposed Laydown Yard is situated to the east of Parachute Creek on an alluvial fan formed at the base of a steep drainage off of the plateau to the east. The steep slopes to the southeast of the location have been mapped by Garfield County as being subject to major slope hazards (Figure 4). It is anticipated that all of the slopes to the east of the site are also subject to major slope hazards; however, Garfield County's study did not extend beyond the area indicated on Figure 4 . No faults or other hazards are evident on the Geologic Map of Colorado and other geologic maps of the area . The nearest perennial surface water feature is Parachute Creek which flows north to south and is located - approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed facility . As noted above , the site is located on a large alluvial fan deposited at the base of an ephemeral drainage from the plateau to the east. Because the location for the facility is sufficiently separated from the steep slopes to the east and off the main channel from the drainage to the east , geologic hazard potent ial from rock fall , flash flooding or debris flow is relatively low. The design for the facility appears to incorporate a number of surface water controls that will mitigate any potential impact from storm events. References Donnell , J.R ., Schmitt , L.J ., and Smith , M.C ., 1992 , Geologic map of the Red Pinnacle quadrangle , Garfield County , Colorado : U.S. Geological Survey , Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -2202 , scale 1 :24000. Donnell, J.R. and Yeend, W .E., 1968, Geologic map of the Grand Valley quadrangle, Garfield County , Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey , Open-File Report OF-68-77, scale 1 :24000 . Donnell , J .R., Yeend , W.E ., and Smith, M.C ., 1986 , Preliminary geologic map of the Grand Valley quadrangle, Garfield County , Colorado : U.S. Geolog ical Survey , Miscellaneous Field Stud ies Map MF-1883 , scale 1:24000 . Hail, W .J. and Smith , M.C ., 1997, Geologic map of the southern part of the Piceance Creek Basin , northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey , Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1- 2529 , scale 1: 100000. Tweto , Ogden , 1979, Geologic map of Colorado : U.S . Geological Survey , scale 1 :500000 . U. S. Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service , 2009 , Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area , Colorado , Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties, Web Soil Survey. l;y v,-:- 9/nnison l\~ate Geologist • • ~-----------------~ . -; .. £ I I .&S96W }. ~ . . , ( . l I L J \ .. ....... \ "" l i f \ • -Geology data provid ed by USGS Colo rado Geologic Survey- Srte Location Geology Ty pes ..... ----. '-. ._ Cou nty Roads Qg -Grave ls and Alluviums (Pinedale and Bull Lake Age) .. . "' •. ... . .. ......... J( l .f. •• ..~ . r-"' , •• .... .. ... ·-WO .. , . ./'. ! 600 •••c::===-••••••Feet 0 150 300 1 inch equals 300 feet I . -- ........ .. ·28 ... , .. / .. . I' ... ... ~ . .. • c:-~ LJ Two -Wasatch Fomi ation (Inc lu ding Fort Union Equiva lent at Base) and Oh io Creek Formation PR OJECT NO: DRA"'-N BY: DATE: 009-2 001 Leslie Booth GISAnalyst 10/16/09 GEOLOG Y MA P LAYDOWN YA RD PETROLEUM DE V ELOPM E NT CO SECT. 28 & 29 , T6S , R96W GARFIE LD COUNTY, CO LOR A DO O\oLSSON A S SO C IA T E S 826 21-112 ROAD GRAN D JUNCTION , C081505 TEL 970.26 3.7800 FAX 970.263.7456 FIGURE PROJECT NO : 009-2001 -------·-~ AERIAL VIEW OF LOCATION FOR PROPOSED LAYDOWN YARD DRAWN BY : DD DATE : 11/17/2009 -----····----··-····-·-·······-·---------·----------·------··-··------··· O\oLSSON ASSOC I A T ES 826 21Y, Road •· - Grand Junction, CO 81505 TEL 970.263.7800 2 FAX 970.263.7456 ~----------------·- • . .. 65 •• • I . ':" .. F I 46 • I • I -Soil data provi ded by NR CS Soil Data Depot website- 0 90 180 Srte Location Soils CJ 62 -Rock Outcrop-Torriorthents Complex, very steep 1 inch equals 200 feet -County Roads CJ 46 -Nihill Channery Loam , 1-£% slopes CJ 65 -Torr iflu vents , nearly level 47 -Nih ill Channery Loam, 6-25% slopes PROJECT NO: 009-200 1 FIGUR E SOILS M A P O\oLSSON Leslie Booth LAY DOWN YARD 826 21 -1 12 ROAD ORAV\N BY: GRAND JUNCTION , GISAnalyst PETROLEUM DEV ELOPMENT CO SEC T 2 8 & 29 , T6 S , R96W co 81505 3 ASSOCIATES TEL 970 .263 . 7800 DATE: 10/16/09 G A RFIELD COUNTY, COLORA DO FAX 970 .263.7456 _ ....... -----------~ ·! t J T . -r--... •;"'; . .,. Srte Location Slope Hazard -County Roads -Major PROJECT NO : DRAIMI BY: DATE: Moderate 009-2001 Le slie Booth GIS Analyst 11118/09 J SLOPE HAZARDS MAP LAYDOWN YARD PETROL EUM DEVELOPMENT CO SECT 28 & 29 , T6S , R96W GARFI ELD COUNTY, COLORADO ~----------------~ 0 400 800 ---c:===------• Feet 200 1 inch eq uals 400 feet CY\oLSSON A SSOCIATES 826 21-112 ROAD GRAND JUNCTION , C081505 TEL 970.263 .7800 FAX 970.263 .7456 FIGURE 4 • • ~----------------~ • • cc cFOR OFFICIAL USE O NLY: DISCLOS URE OF SITE LO CATIONS IS PROHIBITED (43 CFR 7.18) REPORT ON THE CLASS I CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR A LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW FORA PROPOSED LAND SURFACE USE AREA (LAYDOWN YARD) ON PRIVATE LAND IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO FOR PETROLEUM D EVELOPMENT CORPORATION Declaration of Negative Findings GRl Project No . 2986 18 September 2009 Prepare d by Carl E . Conner, Principal Investigator and Barbara J. Davenport Grand River Institute P.O. Box 3543 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775 State of Colorado Archaeolog ica l Permit No. 2009 -82 Submitted to Board of County Co mmiss ioners Garfield County, Colorado _.. ....... ----------~ ~----------------·--• • Abstract At the request of the Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), Grand River Institute (GRI) conducted a Class I cultural resource inventory for a proposed Land Surface Use Area (Laydown Yard). The project area is approximately 4.7 acres that are located on private land in Garfield County, Colorado. This work was performed under State of Colorado Archaeological Permit No. 2009-82 and BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775. The Class I files search and report preparation were performed on the l 81h of September 2009. The Class I inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with state and federal legislation governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on federal lands that will be affected by a government action. The purpose of the cultural resources investigation was to identify previously recorded resources within or near the proposed yard that may be adversely affected by the proposed action and to evaluate the potential of additional such resources in the project areas. As a result of the files search, no sites have been previously recorded within the proposed project area. Additionally, the files search also indicated that the project area has been previously subjected to a Class III pedestrian survey with negative results. A total of twelve resources have been previously recorded within a mile of the project area. These consist primarily of historic EuroAmerican ranching /farming related sites, although one prehistoric open camp and one isolated find are also included. The nearest site is the historic Low-cost Ditch , 5GF21l4. l, officially evaluated as not eligible. Three previous projects included Class III inventory (intensive pedestrian) within the proposed project boundary, none of which identified cultural properties. Since no known cultural resources will be directly affected within the study area, no further consideration of such is recommended for the proposed project. -------------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1. Project lo c ation map ............................................................................................................. 2 Table 1. List of previously recorded res o urces near the proposed project area .................................. .4 Table 2 . List of projects previously conducted within or n earby th e study a rea ................................. 5 • • ~-------------------• • Introduction At the request of the Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), Grand River Institute (GRI) conducted a Class I cultural resource inventory for a proposed Land Surface Use Area (Laydown Yard). The project area is approximately 4.7 acres that are located on private land in Garfield County, Colorado. This work was performed under State of Colorado Archaeological Permit No. 2009-82 and BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775. The Class I files search and report preparation were performed on the l 81h of September 2009 by Carl E. Conner, Principal Investigator and Barbara Davenport. T he Class I inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with state and federal legislation governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on privately owned lands that will be affected by a government action. It was done to meet requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ( 43 U.S.C. 170 I), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U .S.C. 470aa et seq., as amended), and Article 80 .1, Colorado Revised Statutes. These Jaws are concerned with the identification, evaluation , and protection of fragile, non-renewable evidence of human activity, occupation, and endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, objects, ru ins , works of art, architecture , and natural features that were of importance in human even ts . Such resources tend to be localized and highly sensitive to disturbance. All work was performed according to guidelines set forth by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) of the Colorado Historical Society. Location of the Project Area The study area is located about 3.0 miles northwest of the town of Parachute in Garfield County, CO. The 4.7-acre block area lies in T. 6 S., R. 96 W., Sections 28 and 29; 61h P.M. (Figure 1). Environment The project area is within the Piceance Creek Basin, one of the major geologic subdivisions of Colorado. The Piceance Creek Basin is an elongate structural down warp of the Colorado Plateau province that apparently began its subsidence approximately 70 million years ago during the Laramide Orogeny. Sediments from surrounding highlands were deposited in the basin, accumulating to a thickness of as much as 9000 feet by the lower Eocene epoch, when subsidence ceased. Regional uplift occurred in the Late Tertiary, and erosion of the area has continued since (Young and Young 1977:43-46). The Wasatch formation underlies the study area. It consists of a series of interbedded variegated ------------------~ ........... ________ ~ mudstones, sandstones, and siltstones of varying colors--brick red , tan, white , and purple . Forming after a period of erosion , the Wasatch is the first extensive continental deposit following those of the Cretaceous-age Mesaverde Group. Sediments are stream , floodplain, and swamp deposits. The project area rests within a narrow, steep-sided , inter-mountain valley of the Roan Cliffs. Elevations range from about 5500 feet above sea level on the portion of the valley floor that contains the project area. This relatively low elevation is host to a cool semiarid climate where temperatures can drop to -10 degrees F during the winter and summer temperatures may reach 100 degrees F; there is a maximum of 140 frost free days and the annual precipitation is about 12 inches. The surrounding higher elevations are characteri z ed as cooler and moister. Annually, the high mountain temperature s could average 5 degrees cooler and the precipitation as much as 14 inches greater that the surrounding low elevations (USDA SCS 1978 :244). There are several generalized vegetation communities in the area including riparian along the creek, big sage and saltbush shrub land in the valley bottom, and juniper/oak woodland on the surrounding mountain slopes. However, the prehistoric streamflow and habitats along Parachute Creek have been significantly altered by historic EuroAmerican water diversions , reservoirs, and irrigation of agricultural fields. The valley bottom has also changed due to infringement by pipelines, gravel operations, roadways and bridges. Ranchers currently use the bottomland primarily for livestock grazing. These communities support a variety of wildlife species . Mule deer, elk, coyote, and black bear are common, as are cottontail rabbits, and various rodents. Mountain lion, bobcat, fox, skunk, badger, and weasel are also likely inhabitants. Bird species observed in the area include the wild turkey, jay, raven, red-shafted flicker, long-eared owl, and various raptors. Although the present day land use of the project area (including energy development, grazing , ranching and farming) has pushed some of the large mammals into the surrounding mountains, mule deer and wild turkeys make heavy use of the cultivated fields during the months of colder temperatures. Also , the creek contains several beaver ponds and wetlands that are supported primarily from snowmelt, groundwater, springs , and irrigation runoff Paleoclimate Relatively small changes in past climatic conditions altered the exploitative potential of an area and put stress upon aboriginal cultures by requiring adjustments in their subsistence patterns. Therefore , reconstruction of paleoenvironmental conditions is essential to the understanding of population movement and cultural change in prehistoric times (Euler • • • • et al. 1979). To interpret whatever changes are seen in the archaeological record, an account of fluctuations in past climatic conditions mu st be available or inferences must be made from studies done in surrounding area. Generally, only gross climatic trends have been established for western North America prior to 2000 BP (Antevs 1955; Berry and Berry 1986; Madsen 1982; Mehringer 1967; Peterson 1981; Wendlund and Bryson 1974 ). Scientific data derived from investigations of prehistoric cultures and geoclimatic and bioclimatic conditions on the southern Colorado Plateau over the past two millennia have achieved a much greater degree ofresolution (Dean et al. 1985). Files Search Results Cultural resource investigations in the region have yielded surface diagnostic artifacts and excavated cultural materials cons istent with the regional cultural history. Evidence provided by chronometric diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon analyses indicate regional occupation during the Paleoindian Era, Archaic Era , Formative Era, and Protohistoric Era. Historic records indicate occupation or use of the region by EuroAmerican trappers , settlers , miners , and ranchers as well. Overviews of the prehistory and history of the region are provided in the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists ' publications entitled "Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin" (Reed and Metcalf 1999), and "Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology" (Church et al. 2007). Files searches for known cultural resources within the project area were made through the Colorado Historical Society's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation . A total of twelve resources have been previousl y recorded within a mile of the project area . These consist primarily of historic EuroAmerican ranching/farming related sites , although one prehistoric open camp and one isolated find are a lso included (Table 1). The nearest site is the historic Low-cost Ditch, 5GF2l15.0, officially evaluated as not eligible. Three projects-listed as GF.LM.R200, GF.AE.Rl97 , and MC.LM.R96 in Table 2-included Class III inventory (intensive pedestrian) within the proposed project boundary. Table 1. List of previously recorded resources near the proposed project area. Site ID Site Type Assessment 5GF .150 Historic , Not Eligible Field Farming/ranching 5GF.151 Historic , Habitation Not Eli gible Field 5GF.152 Historic, Habitation Not Eligible Officially 5GF.458 Garage Not Eligible Field ........... -----------~- - Site ID Site Type Assessment SGF.460 Historic, Not Eligible Field Struc ture/fo undati on/ ali gnment SGF.942 Open Camp Needs Data Field SGF.2107 Isolated Find Not Eligible Field SGF.2115.0 Historic, Water Control Not Eligible Officially SGF.2115 Historic, Water Control Not Eligible Officially SGF.3610 Historic, Not Eligible Field Farming/ranching SGF.3611 Historic, Not Eligible Field Farming/ranching 5GF.4079.1 Historic, Trail/road Not Eligible Officially Table 2. List of projects previously conducted within or nearby the study area. Project No. Title/Author/Date/Contractor GF.LM.R200 Title: a Cultural Resource Inventory of the Union Oil Company Property in Parachute Creek, Garfield County, Colorado Author: Jennings, Calvin H. and Carl W. Ritchie Date: 06/0111975 Contractor: Laboratory of Public Archeology for Bechtel Corporation and the Bureau of Land Management GF.LM.Rl98 Title: Final Environmental Baseline Report Parachute Shale Oil Project Cultural Resource Section Author: Hall, H. Dan and James Grady Date: 01/01/1983 Contractor: Western Cultural Resources Management for Mobil Oil Corporation and the Bureau of Land Management GF.AE.R197 Title: Union Oil Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Phase Ilcultural Resources Study Author: Conner, Carl E. and Diana L. Langdon Date: 08/01/1983 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF .LM.NR359 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on the Mv#4621 and Gr#328v Proposed Well Locations in Garfield County, Colorado, for Barrett Resources, Inc. Author: Conner, Carl E. and Rebecca L. Hutchins • e • • Project No. Title/Author/Date/Contractor Date: 06/09/1993 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM.NR364 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on Two Well Locations (Mv# 5419 and Mv# 5420) and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Energy, Inc. (S#1276) Author: Conner, Carl E . Date: 06/28/1993 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM .NR365 Title : Cultural Resources Inventory Report on Three Propo sed Well Locations (Mv#5930, Gr#2432v and Gr# 1233v) and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Energy, Inc. Author: Conner, Carl Date: 07 /20 /1993 Contractor : Grand River Institute for GF.LM .NR368 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on the Proposed Mv# 5819 Well Location and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Energy, Inc . (S#1273) Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 07 /30 /1993 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF .LM .NR369 Title : Cultural Resources In ventory Report on the Proposed Gr# 4119v Well Location and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Energy, Inc. (8#1283) Author: Conner, Carl E . Date: 08/2611993 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM .NR387 Title: Cultural Resources Inv en tory on the Proposed Gr #1229v Well Location and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Energy, Inc. (S#9476) Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 11/24/1993 Contractor: Grand River Insti tut e GF.LM .NR394 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on the Proposed Gr#2128 Well Location and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Resources, Inc. Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 03/30/1994 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM .R76 Title: Cultural Resource Inventory Report on the Proposed Gr #3429 Well Location and Related Access in Garfield County, Colorado for Barrett Resources, Inc . Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 09/22/1994 ---------------~ Project No. Title/Author/Date/Contractor Contractor: Grand River Institute MC.LM.R96 Title: Greasewood Compressor Station to Parachute Creek, a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory on Phase I of a Proposed Pipeline for Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties , Colorado Parachute Creek Segment , a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory on Phase 2 of a Proposed Pipeline for Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Garfield County Author: Mcdonald , Kae and Michael D. Metcalf Date: 11/01/1994 Contractor : Metcalf Archaeological Consultants for the BLM MC.LM.Rl85 Title: Class III Cultural Re source Inventory Report for the Yankee Gulch Sodium Minerals Project Proposed Piceance to Parachute Pipe line in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties , Colorado , for American Soda, L.1.p. Author: Conner, Carl E. and Barbara J . Davenport Date: 03 /09 /2000 Contractor : Grand River Institute Di scussion/Historical Background post-1880 The Ute people occupied large areas of Western Colorado until about 1881. Due to the White River Ute 's discontent that lead to the "Meeker Massacre ," as the incident became known, a congressional investigation lead to the Treaty of 1880 that stipulated the removal of the White River bands to the Uintah Reservation in northeastern Utah . The Uncompahgre band was to be given a small reservation in the vicinity of the confluence of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers . Aware of the value of these agricultural lands, however, the commission charged with enforcing the terms of the treaty, under the direction of Otto Mears, manipulated the location process using a loophole in the treaty language, and the Uncompahgres were given lands in Utah near the Uintah Reservation. The Southern Ute bands were left on the small reservation in southwestern Colorado that had been given them by the Treaty of 1873. On 1 September 1881, the last of the Utes were moved to their new reservations in Utah, and western Colorado was completely opened to the whites. Interest in the potential agricultural lands of western Colorado (namely the Uncompahgre, Gunnison, Colorado , Dolores, San Miguel, White, and La Plata River valleys) had been growing for some time prior to the Utes ' banishment, and by the spring of 1881 frontier towns closest to the Ute lands were "crowded with people, anxious to enter the Reservation and take possession of the most desirable locations (Haskell 1886:2)." Only days after the last of the Utes had been expelled, settlers began rushing onto the reservation lands. Settlement activity spread quickly--during the autumn months of 1881 land claims were staked, townsites were chosen, and railroad routes were surveyed (Haskell 1886, Borland 1952, Rait 1932). However, because the former reservation lands were not • • ~----------------...-• • officially declared public lands until Aug u st 1882 , the first ye a r of settlement activity was marked by a degree of uncertainty regarding the legality of land claims. When finally announced, the 1882 declaration did not allow home-stead entries on the newly opened lands, but only pre-emptions, or cash entries, at the rate of $1.25 per acre for agricultural land, $5.00 per acre for mineral land (Borland 1952:75). Settlement of the Parachute area began in the fall of 1882, when J.B. Hurlburt and his partner Mr. Billiter, both from California , arrived in the area, trailing 2000 sheep . Purchasing a small log cabin from a fellow known only as "Hungry Mike", Hurlburt spent the winter readying for his family's arrival the following spring. The cabin , constructed of tightly laid peeled cottonwood logs with a roof of deer skins covered with dirt , required littl e work, so time was devoted instead to clearing a n acre of ground, planting a garden , and building an irrigation ditch . Hurlburt returned to California and brought his family by the train to Rawlins , then via covered wagon over the Government Road between the White and Grand (Colorado) Rivers to their new hom e (Murray 1973: 1-3). Other settlers of Parachute Creek arriving prior to 1890 included: "Doc" Wilson , a cattleman and owner of the early Seven-Bar-Four brand; Tom Glover, also a cattleman ; Mr. Hoffman , who had a feed and secondhand store in town; Enos Yeoman, a form e r government scout; Mr. Davenpo1i, who ran a general store and who was also interested in sheep-raising; M.T. Rowley, one of the first experimenters with oil shale in the area ; Jo e Trimmer; John Cline and his famil y; the John "Purdy" Crawford family , cattle ranchers; Arcadeous Benson, a cattle rancher ; and Mr. Roslyn Smith, one of the developers of the "Low-cost Ditch." Among those arriving in the 1890s were Marcus Dee Freeland, a cattle-man owning the ZB brand ; the Sig Cox family; the James Wheeler family, who settled in Swanson Gulch (now Wheeler Gulch); the Pete Lindauer family , who raised cattle; the George Gardner family; the Granlee family; Mr. Hilliker, the first depot agent; the Philip Dere family; and Bob Wallace . We are reminded of many of these early settlers by the names of local topo graphic features--Crawford Trail , Cox Hill, Wheeler Gulch , Gardner Gulch , Granlee Gulch , Lindauer Point, etc. (ibid:4-14). By 1895 , the major portion of the land al ong Parachute Creek. had been claimed , mostly under Cash Entry patents. The settlers raised their own food and avail ed themselves of the plentiful game in the area . Gardens, hay fields , and orchards were planted, and irrigation ditches were dug to divert the creek's water to cultivated fields. Large herds of cattle and sheep were accumulatin g , grazing the va lley floor and the vast open range above, driven to the uplands via trails leading up the various gulches. Because the area was still fairly remote , competition for lands had no t yet begun. Travel in and out of Parachute was restricted to h orse and/or wagon. There were several well -developed Ute trails , and in the early 1880s, the federal government had built the aforementioned road between the White and Grand Valleys. In 1885 a toll road opened along the Grand River between Rifle and Grand Junction; prior to the building of this road through DeBeque Canyon , the route to Grand Junction had been a two -week journey "through the Cedar Hills, up Kimball Creek ... down the "Sawtooth Range to Fru ita and then back to Grand Junction" (Murray 1973:5). But, despite this net\york of trails and roads, Parachute remained pretty much isolated. With the coming of the D&RG railroad to Parachute in 1890, however, new pressures were brought to the area. More and more settlers arrived , competing not only for arable land but also for grazing privileges on the unpatented public domain of the surrounding uplands . Increasing numbers of cattle and sheep were imported , some being run as commission cattle for outside investors (ibid:84). Open warfare between cattle and sheep ranchers ensued , resulting in the slaughter of thousands of animals. Four thousand sheep belonging to Messrs . Starkey and Charlie Brown were killed by masked men who tried to drive the animals over cliffs at the head of a Clear Creek tributary and above the Granlee Schoolhouse (LaPoint et al. 1981 :3-51 ). Another 4000 sheep belonging to J .B. Hurlburt were driven to their deaths above Ben Good Creek, a tributary of East Fork (Davis 1975). The animosity between cattlemen and sheepmen continued into the 1900s. Finally, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, bringing to an end the free range by providing for regulated grazing and an end to the Sheep-Cattle Wars. Cash Entry, Desert Land, and Homestead patents continued to be granted into the 1920s and 30s. Ranching and farming were still the most important economic activities in the Parachute area and remained so until the 1960s and 1970s w hen many of the farms and ranches were bought up by large companies interested in the large-scale extracti on of shale oil. The earliest of settlers had recognized the potential value of "the rock that bums" or "rubberrock", and formed the Parachute Mining District (P.M.D .) in 1890 (Murray 1973 :141). An early member of the District, TE. Bailey, built a retort near the head of West Fork Parachute Creek in the early 90s. By 1928 , 62,000 or so acres had been filed on in the District--50 ,000 patented , 12,000 unpatented. An individual could claim only 20 acres but 160 acres could be held by groups of eight shareholders (Murray 1973: 143). No development was ever undertaken by the P.M .D., however, due to the decline in the interest in oil shale during the 20s and 30s and the deaths of several of the District's original members . Oil shale development gradually became the prerogative of the government and the large oil companies. The government's interest involved the withdrawal of 45 ,440 acres (Naval Oil-Shale Reserve) east of the P.M.D. claims and the building of an experimental station at Anvil Points. Early company efforts centered around Union Oil's semi works retort, built in 1956 near the confluence of the East, West, and Middle Forks of Parachute Creek. Up to 1200 tons of ore were processed per day, producing up to 800 barrels of crude oil per day. Further development of the project was postponed in the 50s and 60s because of low world oil prices, but interest was renewed in the 1970s and continues today. S u mmary and Recommendations A total of twelve resources have been previously recorded within a mile of the project area. These consist primarily of historic EuroAmerican ranching/farming related • • • • sites, a lthough one prehistoric open camp and one isolated find are also included . The nearest site is the historic Low Cost Ditch, 5GF2 l l 5 .0, officially evaluated as not eligible . Three previous projects included Class III inv e ntory (intensive pedestrian) within the proposed project boundary, none of which identified cultural properties . Since no known cu ltural resources will be directly affected within the study area, no further consideration of such is recommended for the proposed project. Re feren ces Antevs, E. 1955 Geologic-climate dating in the west. American Antiquity 20:317-355. Berry, Michael S. and Claudia F. Berry 1986 Chronological and C onceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In: Borland, Lois Anthropology of the Desert Wes t, ed. by Carol J. Condie and Don D . Fowler, pp . 253-327. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110. Salt Lake City. 1952 Ho for the reservation; settlement of the Western Slope. Colorado Magazine 29(1):56 -75. Church, Minette C . and Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J . Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells 2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeo logists . Conner, Carl E . and Diana L . Langdon 1983 Union Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Phase II -Cultural Resources Study. Ms on file, Office of Arch aeology and Historic Preservation. Davis , John A. 1975 Site form prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Dean, Jeffery S .; R. C. Euler; G. J. Gumerman; F. Plog; R.H. Hevly ; and T. N.V. Karlstrom 1985 Human behavior, demography and paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity 50(3):537-554. Euler, Robert C .; G. J. Gumerman; Thor N .V. Karlstrom; J , S. Dean; and Richard H . Hevly 1979 The Co lorado Plateaus : Cultural dynamics and paleoenvironment. Science 205( 4411):1089 -1101. Haskell , Charles W. ----------------~- 1886 History and Description of Mesa County, Colorado. Edited and published by the Mesa County Democrat, Grand Junction. Husband, Michael B. 1984 Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver. LaPoint, Halcyon, Brian Aivazian, and Sherry Smith 1981 Cultural resources inventory baseline report for the Clear Creek Property, Garfield County, Colorado , Volume I. Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins . Madsen, David B. 1982 Great Basin paleoenvironments: summary and integration . In:Mand and Environment in the Great Basin , D.B. Madsen and J.F. O'Connell , editors. Society of American Archaeology Papers No. 2 , pp.102-104 . Wash., D.C. Mehringer, Peter J . 1967 Pollen analysis and the alluvial chronology. The Kiva 32:96-101. Murray, Erlene D . 1973 Lest We Forget-A Short History of Early Grand Valley, Colorado, Originally called Parachute, Colorado. Quahada, Inc., Grand Junction. Rait, Mary 1932 History of the Grand Valley. M.A. thesis , University of Colorado , Boulder. Peterson , Kenneth P. 1981 10 ,000 years of change reconstructed from fossil pollen, La Plata Mountains , southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation , Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Seattle. Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists. U.S.D .A., Soil Conservation Service 1978 Soil Survey. Wendlund, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson 1974 Dating climatic episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4:9-24. Young, Robert G. and Joann W. 1977 Colorado West, Land of Geology and Wildflowers. Wheelwright Press, Ltd ., U.S.A . • • c::::J Site Location LJ Parce ls ·-County Roads D 217129100005 (Area : 350 acres) -Parachute , CO PROJECT NO: DRAll'M BY: DATE: 009-2001 Le slie Booth GISA.nalyst 10/16/09 VICINITY MAP LAYDOWN YARD PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ~--------------------- 1 inch equals 0 .8 miles O\oLSSON ASSOCIATES 826 21-112 ROAD GRAND JUNCTION, C081505 TEL 970.263 .7800 FAX 970.263 .7456