HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Response to Planning Staff Report{
X Greg Lewicki And Associates, P L L C
11541 Warrington Court Phone: (303) 346-5196 Fax (303)-346-6934
Parker, CO USA 80138 E-Mail: info@ lcwicki.biz
October 21, 2014
Fred Jannan
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 40 I
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I
CERISE MINE -RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND CONCRETE
PLANT SUPPLEMENT
Since the original application for the Cerise Mine amendment was submitted and deemed
complete by the Garfield County Community Development Staff, changes have been crafted to
address items brought to the applicant's attention by the county staff, neighbors, and the
landowner. Therefore, this letter contains both a complete response to the County's staff report
from September 2014, but also additional information about the concrete batch plant.
Concrete Batch Plant
Concrete will be produced at the Powers Pit for the life of the Cerise Mine. This facilitates
minimizing the scale of activity that takes place at the Cerise Mine during its life. However, in
the event that the lease in place at the Powers Pit comes to an end, the ability to transfer the
concrete production activities to the Cerise Mine is necessary to protect the value of the Cerises'
lease. Such a situation is highly unlikely, but it is prudent for United and the Cerises to prepare
for this possibility. Therefore, additional impact analyses have been conducted for the Cerise
Mine assuming the presence of a concrete batch plant.
A concrete batch plant would only be brought online at the Cerise Mine under the following
conditions:
I. The lease at the Powers Pit is no longer in place
2. Mining at Cerise has reached maximum depth (90 feet below the natural grade)
3. Fixed wastewater facilities (such as an ISDS) and a potable water well have been
installed at Cerise
It is United's desire to maintain the existing leases it has at both Powers Pit and at the Cerise
Mine. Moving concrete production operations would be expensive and would increase the scale
and scope of activity at Cerise. However, since it is necessary to evaluate the Cerise Mine at its
highest level of impacts, an additional evaluation of the operation with the concrete batch plant
on site has been conducted. Attachment I contains these concrete plant inclusive impact
analyses, along with the portions of the original amendment application that would be different
with the concrete batch plant.
All other items discussed in the staff report are addressed below.
Response to the Planning Staff Report
Based on the information contained in the Garfield County Community Development
Department staff report from September 2014, United Companies and Greg Lewicki and
Associates (representing the applicant) has the following comments and points of clarity:
Basin Ditch and Slope Stability
The Basin Ditch is a well-established ditch Jess than five feet deep in the areas that are nearest to
the Cerise Pit. The active mine pit will be over I 00 feet from the ditch. Furthermore, drilling
conducted on the property encountered no water, even in the two holes that are north (TH-8) and
south (TH-I) of the Basin Ditch respectively. There is no reason to believe that water from flows
in the Basin Ditch will in any manner affect slope stability at the Cerise Mine.
While the Tetra Tech geotechnical analysis of the Basin Ditch used a different slope and distance
arrangement than is in the amendment, a nearly identical scenario (Bench highwall and I 00 foot
offset to a structure) was analyzed for the overhead electric service lines and associated poles
east of the property. This scenario had a Factor of Safety (FOS) of I .6. Therefore the Basin Ditch
will not be risked by being I 00 feet from the mining Bench highwall configuration.
It also should be noted that the geoteclmical analysis includes a single overall worst case,
represented by the analysis of Fence B. At 10 feet from the highwall and with the Bench
configuration, the FOS was 1.4. Since the absolute minimum FOS is 1.0, and the geology of the
site is consistent, it can be conservatively stated that there is no permanent structure around the
Cerise Pit that will be damaged by mining operations as they are planned.
Operations
The Cerise Pit operations are described as "temporary" in an effort to provide the community
with a realistic picture of the whole project. While the permit does allow for year around
operations and therefore the impacts associated with them, the construction industry does not
operate on such a schedule. The on-demand rock source design for Cerise in this amendment
application will typically create impacts for only "temporary" periods each year, as opposed to
the Lafarge plan in Resolution 20 I I -44 that created more continuous "permanent'. impacts
regardless of the time of year.
The term "temporary., as it applies to the Cerise Pit operation is based on the operational reality
of the equipment and production that will take place at this pit. Consider a typical year:
I. Off season -January to around March/ April: Site maintenance will be conducted
as needed, probably requiring 1-3 employees and a single piece of equipment
such as small loader
2. Construction Season -Early spring (March/April approx.) through sometime in
mid-October; The crusher spread and wash plant will be brought on site as needed
to produce specific aggregate product for projects. Stockpiles will be built as
needed based on anticipated requirements. Loaders, trucks, and other earthmoving
equipment will be on site as needed to facilitate mining. 3-8 employees needed for
this activity, excluding drivers of trucks taking finished products off site. This is
the period of the year when the most impacts are to be anticipated.
3. Off season -Mid-October to the end of the year: Maintenance and preparatory
work for the next year is conducted. This will include some reclamation work
based on the extents of the years mining and potentially a small amount of
crushing to prepare for the following season (if needed). 1-3 employees needed.
As can be seen in the descriptions above, the impacts of concern, and the majority of the
operation take place over roughly six months of the year. The remainder of the year sees
significantly less impacts and activity. This is why the equipment is all mobile, and the gravel
mining activity is considered ;<temporary'' on a yearly basis. However, it is possible that there
can be crushing in the off-season, or other activities necessitated by jobs. Therefore the permit is
planned and designed to allow full operations at any time of the year. It can be safely assumed
that 90% of the activity of this operation takes place during the construction season. This is a
different from the existing plan approved in Resolution 2011-44 that involves the establishment
of a permanent base of operations at the Cerise Pit, which would likely involve significantly
more off season activity than United wants.
Utility access is not necessary for this operation. Electricity will all come from generators,
potable water will be brought on site, wastewater will be handled by a portable toilet contractor,
and communications will all be via cellular and other mobile technology. United may install
electric, telephone, and data lines at a later date to serve the truck scale and scale house.
Noise
The overburden berm built during Phase 2 mining on the north side of the pit will be extended
around the northeast corner of the pit. This berm will continue along the east side of the site
southward roughly 700 feet. A revised noise analysis has been generated with the inclusion of
this change to show that the decibel levels on the Riley property arc within state noise limits.
This revised noise impact study can be found in Attachment 1.
It should be noted that during construction, state law allows for noise levels 10 dB(A) above the
noise limits for up to 15 minutes each hour. The equipment that United will use to build the berm
will generate noise in bursts as it passes through the area. For example, a scraper may generate
noise in excess of 80 dB(A), but Jess than 90 dB( A), when it drives through the berm location
and deposits dirt. Then the scraper leaves the area that is within I 00 feet of the property line, and
therefore the noise level drops. This sequence is repeated each time the scraper comes through
and deposits more dirt for the berm. The high noise level is present for less than the 15 minutes
an hour allowed by state law. Limiting operations within I 00 feet of the property line will not
reduce the scale and scope of these type of noise impacts.
Operating every 15 minutes an hour to build berms and piles as opposed to continuous
operations will make noise impacts chronic and annoying. It will stretch out the scraper activity
described above over a longer period of time, without leading to a noticeable reduction in overall
noise impact. Construction activity close to the property lines will therefore be conducted as
quickly as possible to eliminate the additional noise source as quickly as possible.
Water
The amendment to Resolution 2011-44 that United has submitted to Garfield County was
assembled based on the desire to have the permit better reflect the use of the Cerise property as a
gravel mine. The previous pit operator associated to this project, Lafarge, permitted it in
anticipation of the site being used not just as an aggregate source, but as a concrete
manufacturing point, and a permanent base of operations for construction activity in the area.
United Companies does not require the scale and scope that is permitted in Resolution 2011-44,
particularly when it comes to employees and their support infrastructure. This is a primary
reason United has pursued this amendment.
Commonly at construction material operations around the state of Colorado, bottled water and
portable toilets are used by employees every day with issue. The portable nature of these systems
facilitates the easy maintenance and operation of them, including their removal in the event that
operations cease at a site for a period of time. Also, portable toilets and bottled water can be
located near mobile equipment like crushers each season, allowing for their ease of use.
Permanent wastewater and potable water facilities have a fixed location, and necessitate
employee travel across site for use, increasing the time required to complete tasks, and therefore
the time that activity such as crushing must take place on a site.
The Cerise Pit will be a flexible on-demand rock source for United's construction operations in
the region. United believes that by treating the Cerise Pit in this manner, the impacts to the
neighbors and the community can be reduced while also reducing their costs. The construction of
the potable water well and an ISDS were two of the biggest costs motivating this decision. If
United must build these structures, then the site would likely be developed as the large scale base
of operations, with greater year around impacts, as it is currently approved in Resolution 2011-
44. Therefore a request for a waiver of standards can be found in Attachment 4.
While no groundwater is expected to be encountered during the operation, there may be times
that water must be pumped from the site to maintain compliance with state law regarding water
rights. The Stormwater Management Plan includes dewatering language for this purpose. The
potential sump locations in each mining phase where stormwater would gather, due to sloping of
the pit floor, can be seen on the revised Mining Maps that are attached in Attachment 5. In the
event that there is a senior call on the Basin Ditch, operational water will be drawn either from
the well installed on site, or purchased and imported. If water availability is significantly limited
in such a situation, the wash plant will likely be shut down.
Irrigation ditches that are located internally on site will be removed as needed during mining, but
the Basin Ditch will be unaffected as it is over I 00 feet from the pit. The grading and drainage
plan from Resolution 20 I 1-44 is attached as Attachment 2.
Access
The access to the Cerise Pit was built under a driveway permit and US Army Corps of
Engineers' 404 permit in August 2014. A copy of the correspondence between United
Companies and the Corps is in Attachment 3 for reference. The driveway permit covering this
construction work was approved in October 2013, and extended into 2014 to facilitate the work
required by the Corps. A second driveway permit has been submitted for the completion of the
driveway construction. This includes analysis of the ability of an entering truck to tum into the
site and stay in its Jane.
Similarly, the improvements required by the Colorado Department of Transportation access
permit to CO Highway 82 have been completed for some time. United will provide Garfield
County with a revised analysis of CR 103 up through the Cerise Mine access prior to the start of
operations at the pit.
A second driveway permit will be submitted to Garfield County Road and Bridge department
that will include two primary demonstrations: the ability of a truck to safely tum right from
northbound CR I 03 into the pit while a truck is in the exit land of the Cerise access; that the
security gate for the pit will be located far enough internal to the access to facilitate at least one
truck parking in the access and therefore off of the highway.
Air Quality
Air pollution permits for the site are approved for the operation and copies will be provided to
the county prior to start up. Mobile equipment moving to and from the site will be documented
for air permit purposes, and said documents will be provided to the county.
Wildlife
When mining and reclamation are complete, there will be shallow enough slopes (31-1:1 V or
shallower) and the remains of a pit ramp, for wildlife to enter and exit the reclaimed pit.
Reclamation
Ditches will be built along slopes to prevent runoff from eroding the slope over long distances.
This technique has been used at other mines along long slopes with success. These runoff
interruption ditches will be installed on the final slopes during reclamation, including concurrent
reclamation. Weed inspections will occur annually with any necessary weed control taking place.
Weeds encounter during stripping will be buried in the overburden or topsoil stockpiles to
prevent their spread. Seeding of all piles and berms will take place in the planting months
following there construction; silt fences will be installed if there is more than 120 days between
the construction of a pile or berm and the next planting season.
ATTACHMENT 1-APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT INCLUDING CONCRETE PLANT
Contents:
I. Revised pages of the original LUC amendment application to address the potential
presence of a concrete batch plant at the Cerise Gravel Pit. (Revisions in red)
2. Revised visual impact analysis addressing the inclusion of a concrete batch plant
(revisions in red).
3. Revised noise impact analysis including the concrete batch plant
4. Addendum Jetter to the traffic study analyzing the inclusion of a concrete batch plant
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The Cerise Gravel Pit is a sand and gravel pit located on the Clifford Cerise Ranch Co, LLLP
(Cerise) property north of 1-1 ighway 82 and east of County Road I 03. The landowner is
submitting an amendment to the Major Impact permit (Resolution 2011-44) with Garfield
County to reduce the scale of overall activities at the mine. This includes a reduction of full time
employees, a reduction of the amount of equipment present most of the year, a new berm layout,
a new mine plan, and a reduction of the maximum disturbed area. The reason for these
reductions is the operator's desire to reduce the impacts of the operation as part of operational
costs savings.
United Companies (United) will be the operator of the pit. The landowner and operator are both
represented in this application by Greg Lewicki and Associates (GLA) of Parker, CO.
General Description
United Companies is developing the Cerise Gravel Pit to supply Garfield County and
surrounding communities with construction materials. The production of construction materials
such as concrete, asphalt, and road base requires a source of quality rock. The Cerise property is
such a source. It will be operated over the course of 15 to 20 years as a supplier for United' s
operations in the area. The entire operations will be contained within the 65.48 acres approved in
Resolution 2011-44.
The Cerise Gravel Pit will be operated as a rock source, as opposed to a final product supplier. It
will send crushed and cleaned rock to facilities at other, already permitted. sites. No asphalt will
be produced at the Cerise Gravel Pit. Therefore it will onl y require two full time employees year
around to maintain the site. During activities in the production season additional United
employees will be on site as needed. The reduction in employees from the appro ved resolution
2011-44 will eliminate se veral of the facilities in the original approval. The potable water and
septic sy stems will no longer be needed, along with the large employee parking lot.
In the event that the lease on the Powers Pit is terminated, United would install concrete
production operations at the Cerise Gravel Pit in order to continue production of concrete in the
area. Thi ~ concrete plant would only be installed if the lease at Powers was terminated and
Cerise has mined to its full depth. Also. in the event of the installation of a concrete plant , a fixed
wastewater system like an ISDS would be installed. United does not anticipate concrete
operations ever being present at the Cerise Gra vel Pit. but the ability to conduct such operations
under the conditions described above must be maintained as part of the lease with Clifford Cerise
Ranch. Therefore. a second set of impact anal yses regarding the Cerise operation with the
presence of the concrete batch plant has been assembled for review by Garfield County.
Equipment and Facilities
Below is a revised list of equipment and structures anticipated to be used at the Cerise Gravel Pit.
This is an estimate, and may change over the course of operations in order to facilitate the
mining and reclamation plans.
9
Eq ui pment
Full time
Loaders
Temporm:F
Loaders
Doze rs
Scrapers
Grader
Water truck
Structures
Scale
*Concrete batch plant
3 Portable crushing plant
I Portable wash plant
2-4 Trash dumpster
I Portable toilets
I
I
3
2-4
*A concrete batch plant will only be installed if the conditions listed on page 9 are met.
Only a loader and scale will be located on site full time, as most of the year the pit will not need
to be running at full production. Equipment needed to produce material during the construction
season will all be portable, and only present for the time needed to satisfy demands at the time.
This will also serve to reduce the number of full time employees needed on site to two. The
potable water well and septic system will not be needed due to United providing portable toilets
and bottled water to employees on site during operations. Process water and dust control water
needs will be satisfied by leased BWCD water.
In the event that a concrete batch plant is installed at the Cerise Gravel Pit, the additional
employee presence will necessitate the construction of a fixed wastewater treatment system and
potable water well. These facilities will be installed at least si x months in advance of the
concrete batch plant coming on site.
Consistent with the Garfield County Code, the Cerise Gravel Pit will operate 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday with crushing, digging, and heavy hauling allowed from 7:00
a.m. to 5:00 pm allowing for administrative and maintenance activities to take place until 8:00
p.m. No operations except emergency maintenance to ensure the integrity of operating
equipment will take place on Sunday.
Mining Plan
Reducing the ongoing impacts of mining activitie s at the Cerise Gravel Pit will be accomplished
primarily by reducing the ongoing mining footprint. Mining will be conducted over the course o f
six phases. The first three phases (I A, I B, & IC) will all have disturbance during the initial
mining, and are therefore grouped (sec Mining Map I). Overburden from these first three phases
will be stored in a pile located on the northern two-thirds of Phase IC. Topsoil from these areas
will be stored in a topsoil storage berm and pile along the southwest sides of Phase IA, I B, &
IC.
Processing equipment will be placed in Phase I B initially, once the topsoil and overburden has
been stripped. Mining will be conducted in Phase I A initially, in a benching style down 25 feet
at a time. Once mining in Phase I A has been completed to the first bench, stockpiles and
processing equipment will be moved into Phase IA to facilitate the mining of the first bench (25
feet deep) of gravel in Phase I B. This procedure wi II be repeated, transferring mining and
processing operations back and forth between Phase IA and I B until reaching 6224' in
elevation, roughly 65 feet from the existing surface. See Mining Maps I and 2.
10
10. RESPONSES TO ARTICLE VII APPLICABLE STA NDARDS AND CRITERIA
This section contains the Article VI I standards applicable to the Cerise Gravel Pit and responses
to those applicable standards by the applicant.
Following is a listing of the applicable standards/criteria found in Article VII of the Garfield
County Land Use and Development Code (Garfield County Code). Portions of code are quoted
in italics, with the response following. Inapplicable portions of Article VII are not included.
Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions.
The land use change complies wilh applicable zone district use restrictions and regulations in
Article Ill, Zoning.
The Cerise p ro perty is in the Rural Zoning District and a gravel extraction facility is considered a
permitted U '>c subject to Major Impact Review. If a concrete plant is installed on site, it will be
installed at the maximum mining depth, which is over 90 feet below natural grade. The
maximum height or the concrete batch plant will be 45 feet, and therefore it will be entirely
below the n<i tural grade of the site.
Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental
Agreements.
The land use change is consistent with applicable provisions <>/the Garfield County
Comprehenxive Plan and any intergovemmental agreemenls be/Ween the County and a
municipality that applies to the area where the use will occur.
The Cerise Gravel Pit will be consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030.
The Cerise property is zoned Rural. However, according to CRS 34-I -305( I), "no board of
county commissioners, governing body of any city and county, city, or town, or other
governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a
variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a
commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future
extraction of such deposit by an extractor." Therefore, per State law, the mining of the aggregate
mineral resource must occur prior to any other developed use, which, in this case, the County
indicates should be residential.
In addition, below is a listing of the applicable provisions from Section Ill, Part 9 (Mineral
Extraction) of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 followed by an explanation of how
the Cerise Gravel Pit will comply with the stated goal, objectives, policies and programs.
The Clifford Cerise Ranch Co, LLLP owns the Cerise property and they want to exercise the
right afforded them by CRS 34-1-305(1) (as quoted above) to mine the sand and gravel resource
found on their property. Therefore, they signed a lease with United Companies to have them
mine the property.
The Cerise Gravel Pit plan has incorporated the following mitigation measures into their plan to
address the impacts of mineral extraction on surrounding private property owners:
13
Access to the site will be onto County Road I 03, south of any residential streets or driveway
access, so the majority of trucks coming and going to the site on County Road I 03 will not pass
any existing homes (the only time trucks will drive north on County Road 103 would be to
deliver materials to a site in that direction).
There is a significant elevation difference between Highway 82 and the elevation of the Cerise
property where the mining will occur. As a result, this ridge will serve as a screening "berm·'
between the mining activity and the highway and all other land south, southeast and southwest of
the site.
Berms will be built using topsoil and overburden from Phase l(A-C). These berms can be seen
on Mining Maps 1-6 located under Site Plan.
United will use portable crushing and wash plants throughout the mine's life. These plants will
be located on the pit floor close to the mining acti vit y. No asphalt plant will be part of the Cerise
Gravel Pit. Concrete production will only be conducted under limited conditions described in
Section 9.
All State and County noise standards will be met.
All State air quality standards will be met and the appropriate air quality permits will be
obtained.
The site will operate during the hours of operation as permitted by the Garfield County Code.
Topsoil and overburden piles and berms will be constructed at the beginning of the mine life.
These berms and piles will be part of visual screening that will evolve over the course of the
operation to reduce visual, dust, and noise impacts while maximizing the area that can remain in
operation as agricultural as mining takes place. The activities at the Cerise Gravel Pit will be
conducted in a manner that minimizes their impact.
Garfield County, lo Jhe exlenl legally possible, will require adequaJe miJigalion to address the
impacls o.f mineral extraction on m(jacenl land owners. These measures may include !he
following:
A. Landscaping and screening;
B. Mod{ficalion of phasing or area lo be mined;
C. Roadway improvements and signage;
D. Safe and efficient access roll/es;
E. Drainage improvements lo project swface and groundwater.
The Cerise Gravel Pit is proposing each of the above described measures as follows:
A. Vegetated berms will be provided on the north and west edges of the property to help
screen the mining activities from off-site.
B. Crushing operations will take place near the active mining highwall on the pit floor
throughout the life of the mine. Mining will progress in a phased manner that will
facilitate concurrent reclamation and a minimization of ongoing disturbed area.
14
adequately designed Jo handle the storage of flammable or explosive solid'I or
gases and that the methods comply with lhe national, State, and local.fire codes.
A letter from the Carbondale Fire Protection District is attached in Section 27 .
2. No materials or was/es shall be deposited upon a property in :mch form or
manner Iha/ they may be lran.iferred off the property by any reasonably
foreseeable natural causes orforces.
All materials stored or deposited the Cerise Gravel Pit will be secured against transfer off the
property by any reasonably foreseeable natural cause.
3. When the proposal is near a river or stream, the Applicant is required to submit
an analysis by a professional engineer showing the boundaries of !he Floodplain
and Jhe Floodway in the area of the pit.
The Cerise Gravel Pit site is located outside of the floodplain and floodway of the Roaring Fork
River. The mine site is separate from the river and floodplain by both Highway 82 and a ridge
that is over I 00 feet higher than the Roaring Fork River Base Flood Elevation (BFE) based on
the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Mate for Garfield County, CO (unincorporated areas)
Community Panel 080205 18808.
Crystal Creek is a smaller stream that runs along the western border of the mining site. This
creek is not included in the FEMA mapping for the area. However, the river is over 25 feet
lower than any adjacent mining activity and over 60 feet from the closest grading extents. There
will be no mining in the floodplain of the creek, which has a I 00-year discharge of
approximately 300 cfs .
./. All gravel extraction operatiom· shall comply with the applicable standard<; of
seclion 3-301 , Floodplain Overlay Regula/ions, and will be subject lo s ection./-
109, Development in JOO-Year Floodplain.
a. In all cases, there shall be no storage of fuel or hazardous malericlls
including concretel mphalt Batch Planls within the F/oodway.
b. All applications shall provide a dewaterl discharge plan Jhat prm•ides a
detailed graphic representation of how dewatering operations shall occur.
This plan shall demonstrate that !he discharge will not exceed Stale
slandardsfor discharge into a water course of Wetland.
No asphalt batch plant wi II be located at the Cerise Gravel Pit. In the event that a concrete batch
plant is present on site it will be located outside the floodway. This can be seen on Mining Maps.
B. Air Quality.
No application shall be approved until the Applicant .rnbmils evidence that uses shall have
currenl CDP HE air po/Ill/ion permits and shall meet current CDP HE emissions standards
for air and waler.
The Cerise Gravel Pit will have all applicable CDPI IE permits in place prior to operations
commencing. Copies of the air permit applications, along with CDPHE correspondence can be
found in Section 19: Impact Analysis.
34
a. The operation shall be organized on the site lo minimize impact on
adjacent land uses and protect established neighborhood character
through installation of screen fences, berming. and/or landscape
materials, as well as by the location of access points, lighting, and
signage.
b. Visual screening shall be in place prior to the commencement of the
commercial mining activity of each phase. Site preparation activity such
as removal of overburden shall be allowed prior to the construction of the
visual screening if material will be used/or the creation of the necessary
screening.
The visual impact to adjacent properties will be minimized by the intelligent use of berms and
the topography of the site. Said berms will be built prior to mining activity whenever possible .
See the Berming and Screening portion of the Impact Analysis section for more infonnation.
3. Unless othen11ise determined by the BOCC, mining opera/ions shall be alloll'ed lo
progress so long as /he previous phases have been reclaimed wilhin 6 months
after the commencement of the new phase. If the reclamation has not commenced
in 6 months, or has not been completed within 18 1110111/Js, all mining operations
on the property shall slop until the rec/amationlrevegetation has occurred to the
sat isfacl ion of I he C ounly.
All reclamation activity will take place concurrently with mining, or immediately following
mining in a phase.
E. County Road System.
1. All applications shall submit a Traffic Impact Study consistent with sec/ion -1-
103.L.
1. Any required improvements shall either be in place prior to or shall be
constructed in c01y·1mclion with the proposed use .
3. Truck traffic will not access the mining operation through residential or
commercial areas, or such traffic will be mitigated.
4. Proposed haul routesfrom the extraction operation will be upgraded to withstand
the additional trqffic, if determined by the Traffic Study or recommended by the
County Engineer, and the permittee will prevent road damage and mitigate dust,
under the supervision of the Road Supervisor.
5. lfa driveway access permit is required by the County Road and Bridge
Department, Applicant must comply with all permit conditions. The owner or
operator of a gravel extraction operation is responsible for any damage caused
by the operation's traffic to a County Road. Repair or replacement of road
surface will be determined by the Road Supervisor.
The access to the Cerise Gravel Pit is currently under constmction according to the approved
existing resolution 2011-44. A revised Traffic Study can be seen in the Traffic Study section . A
supplement to the traffic study is also being provided to the county to address the effect on traffic
of a concrete plant's presence.
36
22. WATER SUPPLY ANO DISTRIBUTION PLAN
Introduction
Water at the Cerise Gravel Pit will fall into two main categories: processing and employee use.
Processing water will be needed for the washing of rock as well as dust control throughout the
site . This water does not need to be potable. Employee used water will need to be potable.
Processing Water
Gravel excavation operations like the Cerise Gravel Pit consume water in various ways . These
are :
I . Dust control during crushing and screening
2. Washing of rock
3. Dust control of mining areas
4 . Dust control of internal roads
The majority of the water used in processing will be used in washing and crushing. This is
anticipated to total 15 ac-ft a year. Dust control for all areas should total I 0 ac-ft per year.
If a concrete plant is installed it would require roughly 15 ac-ft per year of water for processing .
To satisfy the above non-potable water requirements, United has agreed to a contract with the
Basin Water Conservancy District to provide water via the Basin Ditch under "free river•·
conditions. In the event of a senior water right calling on the Ditch water, Un ited has an
agreement to purchase BWCD water as needed .
Employee Use Water
Potable water for employee use will be provided in the form of bottled water brought on s ite by
Un ited. At least one portable toilets will always be on site.
63
(
Visual Impact Analysis
The visual impact of the Cerise Gravel Pit was evaluated as part of Resolution 2011-44 . This
analysis was based on a mining and reclamation plan that involved a very large overburden pile,
and a large scale disturbance. Since these two major elements of the operation have changed, a
new visual analysis has been conducted . The new analysis uses the same viewpoints, and
baseline data, as the first analysis. Google Earth aerial data was used, along with inclusion of
some trees to partially simulate the effect of vegetation on the views.
Elevation differences between Wooden Deer Subdivision and the site means it is impossible to
completely obscure the operations. Therefore, the operator has designed the mine plan to
minimize disturbance as the operation goes on , and to leave the irrigated field portions of the
property in place as long as possible . The buffering and screening plan in this application works
with the reduced disturbance to mitigate the visual impacts of the Cerise Gravel Pit.
Additionally, the new mining plan eliminates the visual impact of the asphalt plants.
Any concrete batch plant brought on site in the event of the termination of the Powers Pit lease.
will be located on the bottom of the mining pit at the maximum mining depth . This elevation is
over 90 feet below the natural grade of the site. Given a maximum batch plant height of 45 feet.
the top of said plant will be 45 feet below the top of the pit. The concrete plant will be located
close enough to the north side high wall so as not to be visible within the pit from any of the
Vantage Points.
On the following pages are screenshots from the visual models, both the original resolution, and
ones from the amendment application. Each screenshot represents the view from a height of 5'8'.
off the ground from a particular view point. The Vantage Points map from the original resolution
is also attached to this section for reference .
(
October 17, 2014
Ben Langenfeld, P.E.
Greg Lewicki and Associates
11541 Warrington Court
Parker, Colorado 80138
"EN=ONMENTAL
~-=:-----=---=-= ----~
A covt t ''•too V r11;.r10N CONS t:Lt1nc
Re: Revised Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Pit for United Companies
Dear Mr. Langenfeld,
Per your request, Hankard Environmental has revised our analysis of noise that is expected to be
generated by each of United Companies proposed Cerise Gravel Pit mining phases. Our previous
analysis was documented in the letter-report Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Grnvel Pit for
United Companies, Hankard Environmental, May 2014. The purpose of this revision was to (a)
add a concrete batch plant to the analysis, and (b) change the noise zone of the property to the
east of the site (Riley) from Light Industrial (daytime limit of 65 dBA) to Residential (daytime
limit of 55 dBA) per the direction of the Garfield County Planning Staff. These changes resulted
in some additional noise mitigation considerations in order to show that noise from the proposed
mining activities will be in compliance with Section 7-1002 (C) Noise/Vibration of the Garfield
County Land Use Development Code (2013). This report describes the applicable noise limits,
the methods used to predict the noise levels, U1e predicted noise level results, the assessment of
compliance, and required noise mitigation.
APPLICABLE NOISE LIMITS
The proposed Cerise Gravel Pit must adhere to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code
(LLJDC), Article 7: Standards, Division 10. Additional Standards for ludustrial Uses , Section 7-1002
Gravel Extraction, C. Noise/Vibration (2013) as shown in Attachment A. Per this standard, U1e
assessment of noise compliance is to be made at a location 25 feet outside the property on which
U1e facility is located, which in this case is U1e Cerise property. The noise limits are dependent on
the time of day and the land use occurring on receiver properties. The proposed hours of mining
operations (e.g. excavation, crushing, hauling, etc.) are from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, thus the
"daytime" (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) limits apply (see Attachment A, Table 7-1002).
Some important caveats apply to U1ese limits. During any construction phases (i.e .: construction
or de-construction of noise mitigation berms), the maximum permissible noise level is 80 dBA for
all land uses. In addition, during the daytime, the noise level limit can be increased by 10 dBA
for 15 minutes in any one-hour period. This is to allow for the intermittent exceedance of the
limits such as when earth moving equipment approaches the property line to construct noise
mitigation berms. Also, noise level limits are decreased by 5 dBA for intermittent, shrill type
sounds, which on this project primarily applies to tonal back-up alarms.
COLORADO • WISCONSIN • MAINE
phone: (303) 666-0617 • www.honkordinc.com • fax {303) 600-0282
HANKARD
ENVIRONMENTAL
-C:--c:::-....c:---------=----::::...-
/1. 1,, 01,11 t t. i • .. L. 'Ii 11•.ai. IQPI C'@ioh .. 1 ... ~
Figure 1 shows the land use surrounding the Cerise property. The following describes how the
noise level limit was established for each parcel.
• West (yellow): Large parcel contains the existing Powers Gravel Pit, which is an Industrial
use, thus the Industrial limits apply.
• North (blue): The parcel is zoned Rural, but is intended for residential use, Urns the
Residential limits apply.
• East (green): Most of this parcel is used agriculturally, which is typically considered as a
Light Industrial noise receptor, but because there is a residence on U1e site Garfield County
Planning Staff requested the project apply U1e Residential standard.
• East (purple): This large parcel is used as agricultural, and thus the Light Industrial
standard applies.
• South (brown): These parcels are all zoned PUD, but the existing use directly soutl1 of the
Cerise Gravel Pit is vacant, thus the Light Industrial standard was applied (similar to
agriculture).
LEGEND
• Nearest Existing
Residence
«mi
26 Industrial
80 dBA
~
@~ ~ , Light lndu$trial
.70dBA
25
FIGURE 1 -DAYTIME NOISE LEVEL LIMITS 25 FEET OUTSIDE THE CERISE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
Revised Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Pit for United Companies
October 17, 2014
page2
(
(
NOISE LEVEL PREDICTION METHODOLOGY
HANKARD
ENVIRONMENTAL
-<---..:.::-_,------~--:::>:"
Acov11 ci •ht' IJ ''"' QP• COfrtH .. l 1"Hi
Noise levels were predicted for eight mining phases, which include Pre-mining, Mining Phases 1
to 6, and Reclamation. For each Mining Phase the primary noise making equipment was
identified and modeled using the Sound PLAN v7.3 software package implementing U1e ISO
9613-2 standard. The sound power level of each mining noise source used in U1e analysis for each
mining phase is provided in Attachment B. This data was taken from sound level measurements
of similar equipment conducted by Hankard Environmental, as well as from published sound
power level data. All stationary or mostly stationary sources (e.g.: crushers, screens, etc.) were
modeled as point sources. All moving sources (e.g.: haul trucks, scrapers, etc.) were modeled as
line sources. All trucks and mobile construction equipment noise sources were modeled at a
height of 7 feet above U1e ground. Stationary sources such as U1e jaw crusher and screens were
modeled at a height of 10 feet above the ground. Noise level predictions points were located 25
feet outside the mine property, and at the residences, and all ata height of 5 feet above the ground.
The ground type for the gravel pit permit area was modeled as "hard soil" with a ground
coefficient of 0.1. The surrounding area was modeled as dry grass lands with a ground coefficient
of 0.6. For reference, a ground coefficient of 0.0 represents pavement and water, and 1.0
represents completely sound absorptive ground.
The following describes the equipment and activities modeled for each phase. Note that U1e
"processing plant" consists of one jaw crusher, two cone crushers, two screens, one loader, and
the associated enclosed diesel engine-generator sets. Also, for any processing, haul trucks were
modeled traveling from the bottom of the pit to U1e scale and main access to the county road.
Pre-Mining: The main activity is removing U1e overburden and topsoil from the planned mining
areas. A large overburden stockpile at least 16 feet high will be stored near U1e entrance and a
smaller top soil stockpile about 10 feet high will wrap around the southern portion of U1e mining
area. Both of U1ese stockpiles are effective at mitigating U1e noise propagation. The primary noise
sources include four scrapers, one bulldozer, and one loader.
Mining Map 1: Mining and processing will start, wiU1 the processing plant located near the
entrance to U1e gravel pit.
Mining Map 2: The process plant remains in a similar location as Map 1, but more mining is
conducted to the south. After this soutl1ern area is mined, a majority of U1e overburden stockpile
and a portion of the topsoil stockpile will U1e used to reclaim the southern area. Thus, in addition
to U1e operation of the processing plant, there will be scrapers and loaders conducting
reclamation.
Mining Map 3: The process plant may shift slightly to the east with mining continuing where the
overburden stockpile was previously located. In addition to the processing plant, scrapers and
loaders will be used to clear the overburden and topsoil from the area to U1e east and construct a
15 foot tall noise berm along the nortl1em permit line and eastern permit line (extends 250 feet
south of Riley property line).
Mining Map 4: Mining and processing continues wiU1 some overburden and topsoil removal to
U1e southeast using scrapers. Though not expected, noise from a concrete batch plant is also
added to the bottom of the pit.
Revised Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Pit for United Companies
October 17, 2014
page3
BANKARD
ENVIRONMENTAL
-C:--c::::--cc----~~~
,.c:o1.1•1 c;a .. ""' v ,,-.,,Ort COi.tl\.~t •tG
Mining Map 5: Mining and processing continues with some overburden and topsoil removal in
the middle of the permit area using scrapers. Again, though unlikely, concrete batch plant noise
remains in this analysis.
Mining Map 6: Mining and processing continues in the south portion of the permit area. Again,
though unlikely, concrete batch plant noise remains in this analysis.
Reclamation: The overburden and topsoil berms are removed and used to fill in portions of U1e
mined gravel pit. This involves scrapers, loaders and possibly a bulldozer.
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AND ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Noise level compliance for a gravel pit in Garfield County is assessed by comparing predicted
noise levels from U1e various mining activities at a location 25 feet outside U1e property line to U1e
noise level thresholds defined by U1e LUDC. Table 1 provides the maximum predicted noise level
for each phase (map) of tlle proposed mining in each of five different directions, with the noise
level limit in each direction from U1e Cerise property at U1e top of each column. Noise level
contour maps for each phase are provided in Attachment C. None of U1e predicted noise levels
exceed U1eir respective criterion.
As described in U1e Applicable Noise Limits section of this report, U1ere are two important caveats
to U1ese noise limits. The first is that the noise level limit during construction activities (verses
mining activities) for all land uses is 80 dBA. The second is U1at daytime noise limits can be
exceeded by up to 10 dBA for 15 minutes in any one-hour period. These caveats apply to U1e
construction (Map 03) and deconstruction (Reclamation) of U1e norU1em and eastern noise
mitigation berms in which the maximum predicted noise level could reach 80 to 85 dBA for short-
durations of time, but should not exceed 80 dBA for more U1an 15 minutes in any one-hour period
due to U1e variable action of the equipment. These caveats also apply to U1e Map 04 where noise
from construction equipment removing U1e top layer of overburden is predicted to be as high as
60 dBA in U1e southern corner of U1e Riley property which has a noise level limit of 55 dBA. As
with the construction and deconstruction of the berms, the variable action of U1e construction
equipment is not expected to exceed U1e noise level limit by more than 10 dBA for more U1an 15
minutes in any one hour period.
While not necessary to show compliance with the LUDC, it should be noted that the predicted
noise levels due to U1e mining operations at all residences outside U1e Cerise property do not
exceed 55 dBA for any phase except during U1e construction and deconstruction of the northern
and eastern noise mitigation berms where U1e residence to U1e east (Riley) could reach 56 dBA.
Finally, the LUDC also requires U1at the ground vibrations along U1e project property line not be
perceptible without instruments. Based on site visits to similar gravel pits, it is our opinion that
ground vibrations will not be perceptible.
Revised Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Pit for United Companies
October 17. 2014
page4
(
HANKARD
ENVIRONMENTAL
c--.c::-~--~-::;;;,..
A~ OIJJI Cl ""-l' V .. A.UOh C'O'-H .• t 11t;,
Therefore, based on our analysis and opinion the United Companies proposed Cerise Gravel Pit
mining operations are expected to be in compliance with Gmfield County LUDC, Article 7:
Standards, Dii ,isio n 10. Additional Standards for Industrial Uses, Section 7-1002 Gravel Extraction, C.
Noise/Vibrati on (2013) with the mitigation measures described below in place.
TABLE 1
Predicted Maximum Sound Pressure Levels for Each Mining Phase ,~dBA ~
Mining North South East (Riley) East (Blue) West
Property Line Property Line Property Line Property Line Property Line Phase/ Map (55 dBA Limit) (70 dBA Limit) (55 dBA Limit) (70 dBA Limit) (80 dBA Limit)
Pre-Mining 53 61 55 57 61
Map1 53 60 54 55 65
Map2 49 57 50 5 1 61
Map3 53 56 53(1 ~ 53 62
Map4 51 62 55t21 59 6 11
Maps 51 65 55 60 58
Maps 50 63 54 62 57
Reclamation 45 57 50(1) 50 56
In Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Compliance?
(1l Noise from construction and deconstruction of northern and eastern berms could reach 80 to 85 dBA
on the Riley property. The Industrial noise limit of 80 dBA applies for this activity. Also, the noise levels
are predicted to not exceed the allowable +10 dBA for no more than 15 minutes in any one-hour period.
12> Noise from overburden removal in the southeast portion of the site may intermittently reach 60 dBA which
exceeds the applied 55 dBA residential limit, but it is expected to remain within the allowable +10 dBA
for no more than 15 minutes in any one-hour period and thus remain in compliance.
Revised Analysis of Noise fro m Proposed Cerise Gravel Pit for United Companies
October 17, 2014
pages
(
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE
BANKARD
ENVIRONMENTAL
-:C:--..c=--=---~.«-c; o v 11 Cl Afllt' Y 1cA Ott C:-t.U. .. t ,.y
For our analysis it was assumed that the following noise mitigation measures would be
employed.
1) Noise berms/stockpiles at least 15 feet tall along the north permit line and eastern
permit line for Mining Phases 4 through 6 as shown in Attachment B. The eastern
berm extends 250 feet south of U1e Riley property line.
2) Backup alarms employing white noise or 0U1er noise controlling tedmology.
3) All generators should be housed within noise reducing enclosures using commercial
grade silencers (i.e. 20 dB insertion loss or more).
4) All construction equipment was assumed to be standard wiU1 standard mufflers and
not-to-exceed noise source levels as defined in Attachment B.
5) The concrete batch plant should be located in U1e bottom of the pit for Mining Phases
4 U1rough 6. The tower should be orientated such that the baghouse is on U1e souU1east
side and U1e loading access point on U1e west side to provide at least 15 dB to 20 dB of
noise reduction to each of U1ese sources in U1e critical directions.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~I~
Jeff M . Cerjan
Senior Acoustical Consultant
Attachments: A -Garfield County Gravel Extrnc1ion Noise Standards 2013
B -Noise Level and Sound Power Data for Mining Equipment
C -Predicted Noise Level Contours for Each Mining Map
Revised Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Pit for United Companies
October 17. 2014
page6
(
ATTACHMENT A
GARFIELD COUNTY GRAVEL EXTRACTION NOISE STANDARDS 2013
Garfield County LURC -2013
7-1002 Gravel Extraction
c. NoiseNibration.
Gravel extraction operations shall be conducted in a manner such that the volume
of sound generated does not constitute a public nuisance or hazard. Gravel
extraction operations shall comply with the standards set forth in C.R.S., Article 12,
Title 25, except as such standards are modified as follows:
1. An Applicant shall submit a noise study that demonstrates the proposed
gravel operation can meet the requirements in the matrix below based on
measuring the sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a
distance of 25 feet or more beyond the subject property, except as excluded
for construction activities per C.R.S. § 25-12-103 et seq., that allows up
to 80 dB(A).
2. The dB(A) threshold shown in Table 7-1002 shall be that of the receiver
and not that of the emitter. For example, while the gravel operation would be
considered an industrial operation, the dB(A) levels shown below are
measured according to the neighboring uses so that if a residential use
was located adjacent to the operation, sound levels could not exceed 55
dB(A) from 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. and 50 dB(A) from 7:01 p.m. to 6:59
a.m.
Table 7-1002: dB(A) Threshold per Neighboring Use
Use 7 am to 7 pm 7 pm to7 am
Residential SSdB(A) SOdB(A)
Commercial 60 dB(A) SSdB(A)
Light Industrial 70dB(A) 65dB(A)
Industrial 80 dB(A) 75dB(A)
3. Every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and
recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of
any boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
(
(
ATTACHMENT B
NOISE LEVEL AND SOUND POWER DATA FOR MINING EQUIPMENT
...
TABLEC1
S N. D t U df A I . ource 01se aa se or na1 vs1s
Type of Point Source Source
Equipment Noise PWL Height Notes
Source (dBA) (feet)
Jaw Crusher point 121 10 Measured 121 dBA,
Other Sources 121 dBA
Estimated 6 dB quieter than
Cone Crushers point 115 10 jaw crusher based on
measurements by others.
Screens point 113 10 Measured 113 dBA,
Other Sources 111 dBA
Loaders line 11 3 7 Measured 113 dBA,
Other Sources 11 O dBA
Scrapers line 115 7 Measured 113 dBA,
Other Sources 115 dBA
Grader tin e 115 7 Measured 113 dBA,
Other Sources 115 dBA
Measured 112 dBA,
Bulldozer line 114 7 FHWA Measured 114 dBA,
Others 106to114 dBA
Haul Trucks line 1 10 7 Measured 108 dBA,
Other Sources 11 O dBA
(
ATIACHMENTC
PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS FOR EACH MINING MAP
dd dd Ak
Noise level
dB(A)
55 <
60<
65 <
70<
75<
80<
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<•80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Pre-Mining
10/16/2014
Limit
BOdBA
• Fl~h
Limit
55dBA
• Riley
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55<
60<
65<
70<
75<
80<
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Map 1
10/16/2014
Limit
BOdBA
• Fllch
Limit
55dBA
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55<
60 <
65 <
70<
75 <
80 <
85 <
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Map2
10/15/2014
Limit
80dBA
• Fiich
Limit
55dBA
• • Cert..02 CeflH03
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55 <
60 <
65<
70<
75<
80<
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<•80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Limit
BOdBA
Map 3 without Berms or Berm Construction
10/16/2014
• Flt ch
Limit
55dBA
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB( A)
<=55
55<-<=60
60< <=65
65< <=70
70 < <=75
75<M <=ao
80<1!!!!1!<=85
85 <
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Map 3 with Berm Construction
10/16/2014
Limit
BOdBA
• Fitch
Limit
BOdBA
Limit
BOdBA
Limit
BOdBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55<
60<
65<
70<
75<
80<
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Limit
BOdBA
Map 4 without Overburden Removal
10/16/2014
Mitigation Berm
(approximate)
• Flt ch
Limit
55dBA
• • Cltlise02 CertHI"
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55<
60<
65<
70<
75<
80 <
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Map 4 with Overburden Removal
10/16/2014
Limit
80d8A
Mitigation Berm
(approximate)
• Filch
Limit
55dBA
• • Ceri..02 Ctf1M03
~~
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
_:--55 lo 60 dBA due to noise
Limit
70dBA
during overburden removal
i n the southeast. Th is is
intermittent noise not expected
lo occur for more than 15 m i n
in any one·hour period . Thus,
still considered i n compliance .
Noise level
dB( A)
55<
60 <
65<
70<
75<
80<
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Maps
10/16/2014
Limit
80dBA
Mitigation Berm
(approximate)
• •
• Fitch
Limit
55dBA
Certs.OZ Cerl..03
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55<
60 <
65<
70<
75<
80<
85<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=80
<=85
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Map6
10116/2014
Limit
BOdBA
Mitigation Berm
(approximate)
• Fitch
Limit
55dBA
• • C~2 Cerbe03
•
~
State Highway 82
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
<=55
55<~<=60
60< I <=65
65 < <=70
10< <=75
75<Gl <•80
80<-<=85
85<
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Limit
80dBA
Reclamation without Deconstruction of Berms
10/16/2014
• Fiich
Limit
SSdBA
• • cen..02 c.n .. os
• Riiey
Limit
55dBA
Limit
70dBA
Noise level
dB(A)
55<
60<
65 <
70<
75 <
80 <
65<
<=55
<=60
<=65
<=70
<=75
<=60
<=65
CERISE GRAVEL PIT
Limit
BOdBA
Reclamation with Deconstruction of Berms
10/1612014
• Fitch
Limit
BOdBA
Limit
BOdBA
Limit
BOdBA
Consulting, LLC
TO :
FROM :
DATE :
PROJECT:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Ben Langenfield, PE
Mark Bunnell, PE, PTOE
October 15, 2014
Cerise Mine -Garfield County Ji
Trip Generation Comparison -"Cerise Only" Scenariq/
Per your request, I prepared this letter that compares the tri p generation from the Approved
Plan to the "Cerise Only" scenario for the Cerise gravel pit (Cerise Pit).
Project Location and Background Information
The Cerise Pit is located on the northeast corner of State Highway 82 (SH-82) and County
Road 103 (CR 103) in Garfield County. The Cerise Pit is adjacent to the Powers gravel pit,
which is on the northwest corner of SH-82 and CR 103.
A traffic impact study (TIS) was prepared for the Cerise Pit and Powers gravel pit in January
2012 by Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. In May 2014 Mr. Coppola prepared a letter that compared
the trip generation from the January 2012 TIS to the Proposed Plan at that time . The purpose
of this letter is compare the "Cerise Only'' scenario to the January 2012 TIS . The "Cerise Only"
scenario is based on a scenario where the Powers gravel pit is no longer operating, and all
operations are run out of the Cerise Pit , including the concrete batch plant. For your reference,
here is terminology that will be used from this point on :
Approved Plan -Refers to the plan documented in the January 2012 TIS .
Proposed Plan -Refers to the plan documented in the May 2014 Letter.
"Cerise Only" Scenario -Refers to a possible scenario where the Powers gravel pit is no
longer operating, and all operations are run out of the Cerise Pit.
The Attachments contain select pages from the January 2012 TIS and the May 2014 Letter.
Page 1of4
(
(
I
\
Trip Generation Comparison
The following table compares the trip generation for the Cerise and Powers Pits for the three
conditions listed in the previous section. The numbers in Table 1 for the Approved Plan and
Proposed Plan represent vehicles and trips to/from the Cerise and Powers Pits; the "Cerise
Only" scenario is vehicles and trips to/from the Cerise Pit only.
Table 1 -Trip Generation Comparison
#of Vehicles per Day (vpd) I PC Es 1
% Change
Vehicle I Trip Type (All vehicles are Large Trucks [PCE = 3], unless otherwise noted)
Approved Plan Proposed Plan "Cerise Only" (Approved Plan to
(Jan. 2012 TIS) (May 2014 Letter) Scenario
·cerise Only" Scenario)
Aggregate and 250 200 200 -20% As halt Trucks
Concrete Trucks 75 02 75 0%
Special Aggregate 5 5 5 0% Im ort Trucks
Employees
15 -56% (passenger vehicles) 45 20
PCE=1
Miscellaneous 10 10 10
Aggregate Import 3 0 Cerise to Powers
Notes:
1. PCE is Passenger Car Equivalent (per Colorado State Highway Access Code)
2. The May 2014 Letter showed 42 concrete trucks, which were actually gravel trucks hauling concrete material
between the Cerise and Powers Pits
3. These trips are between Cerise and Powers on CR 103; they are not on SH-82
4. The trips on SH-82 do not include the Aggregate Import trips; refer to Note #2
As shown in Table 1, the difference between the Approved Plan and "Cerise Only" scenario is
summarized as follows:
• 25% reduction in total vehicles (415 to 310)
• 23% reduction in PC Es ( 1 , 155 to 890)
• 23% reduction in PCE trips on CR 103 (2,310to1,780)
• 20% reduction in PCE trips on SH-82 (2,220 to 1, 780)
Page 2of4
(
(
(
Conclusion
Because the "Cerise Only" scenario has 20%-25% less vehicles, PCEs, and PCE trips than the
Approved Plan that was analyzed in the January 2012 TIS, the analysis and
recommendations in the January 2012 TIS are valid for the "Cerise Only'' scenario.
Therefore, no new analysis is needed for the "Cerise Only" scenario.
The observations and conclusions in the May 2014 Letter (last page) are relevant to the
"Cerise Only" scenario.
Page 3of4
(
Attachments
(
• Select pages from the January 2012 TIS
• May 2014 Letter
(
Page 4of4
Traffic Impact Study
LAFARGE WEST
CERISE AND POWERS SITES
Garfield County, Colorado
Prepared For:
Lafarge West, Inc.
10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80021
Prepared By :
Eugene G. Coppola PE, PTOE
P. 0. Box 630027
Littleton, CO 80163
303-792-2450
January 16, 2012
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
U. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................... 3
UL EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 5
A . Exi sting Road Network ..................................................................................... 5
B . Existing Traffec Condrtions ............................................................................... 7
C . Surrounding land Uses .................................................................................. 9
IV . FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 9
A . Site Assumptions ............................................................................................ 9
B. Site Traffic ..................................................................................................... 11
C . Trip Distribution ............................................................................................. 13
o.. Background Traffic ........................................................................................ 17
E. Future Total Traffic ........................................................................................ 20
E. Fulure Total Traffic .................................................................. , ...................... 20
F. ,Future Roadway Syste m ............................................................................... 20
( V . TRAFFIC IMPA,CTS ............................................................................................ 20
A Auxili ary Lanes and Traffic Controls ............................................................. 20
B. Future Operating Conditions (with Cerise and Powe rs) ................................ 23
VI. DESIGN ISSUES ................................................................................................ 26
A. Auxiliary Lanes on SH 82 .............................................................................. 26
8. Radii .............................................................................................................. 27
C. Crysta l Springs Road Approach to SH 82 ..................................................... 27
D. Auxiliary Lanes on Crystal Springs Road ...................................................... 28
E. Median Improvements ................................................................................... 28
F.. Signage +++•~·-·························· ........................................................................................ ~ ...... 28
G . Sight Distance ............................................................................................... 29
VII . CDOT ACCESS PERMITTING CONSIDERATI ONS .......................................... 29
VIII .CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 30
(
(
10
17 16
20 21
----' _:-__ as aw---Ra7w l ~-----l --------1--'-+-_.....,'-\ I
"o ~
~CERISE
MINE SITE
I
0 2500' 5000'
Cl c:
Ill _____ i;:
29
10000'
!1-----------------------~LAF--AR __ GE __ WEST---,l-NC-.----------------------------------.... Projecl---No--~-1-33-235---1-1·-10003--1
~ ( 11:) TETRA TECH CERISE MINE Dale: NOV, 2011
-Dallgned By:
~ _______ www __ te_tra_t_ech_co_m-11 VICINITY MAP PAGE
~-: 1900 S Sunset SI , Suite 1·F 2
: Longmont. Co. 80501 -~-PH•O•N•E-{3-03m)•n-2--~-82•F•A•Xm(~_.3)•T72•-7•00•9 ... ____________________________________________ _. ______________ ,
Copyright : T8'1111 Teen
_,
w
~ u
~
~
V) a:
0
::E .
~
~ a.
b:: w
~
Sl
~
iii
:I: x w
:5
0 a.
~ u
w z
UJ
~
I!?
iii
i: x
~
V) w _,
iE w w
:i::
V)
~
~
0
0
~ -.,, ..,
"' n g
Ill ..,
~ n: .
::E
<(
"' co
~ .... --I -
,,,-......
CONCEPT PLAN
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
0 200' 400'
I I I I I . .
SCALE. 1-..400
POWERS SITE
POWERS ACCESS
c: -Q>,.---~~.::::,
(it:) TETRA TECH
www.telralech.com
1900 SoU!h Suns•t Stteet, Suire 1.f
Langmonl Ctolorado 80501
Phone: (303) 772·5282 F~x (JIII) 772·7039
~
'-"
CE r SE MINE SITE
CONCEPT PLAN
10
'f' I I
11
I I
I
I ,,
I
I I
I!
I!
I I
It
Ill I I
I I
11
1 l
I l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
:1)
11
I I
...-......
PERMIT
BOUNDARY
Project No; 133-23511-10003 !
Dale: 11-22·11 ~
Designed By:
'IGURE
4
j
u
I
_,,,, BR . ...: Measures 1 tth
(
(
(
Table 2 -Number of Daily Vehicles & Trips for Both Sites
Number of Dailv Trip Estimates one-wav)
Trip Type Vehicles Total From Split now Split now
per Day Previous assigned to assigned to
Studv Cerise Site Powers Site
A~mreoate & Asphalt Trucks 250 500 500 0
Concrete Trucks 75 150 0 150
Special Aaarectate Import Trucks* 5 10 4 6
Emplovees 45 90 60 30
Miscellaneous 10 20 14 6
Aaarei:iate Import -Cerise to Powers** 30 n/a 60 60
Total 415 770 638 252
*These trips would be for the import of special one-time project-specific aggregate for
specialty construction materials
'"'The aggregate transfer (import) from Cerise to Powers is Project traffic that was consi-
dered internal trips to the Cerise Site (on-site trips that did not travel on public roads). As
such, this traffic was not identified in the Cerise Study. This is the traffic that would travel
on CR-103, back and forth between the Cerise Site and the Powers Site. These trucks
generate trips at both site driveways to CR 103.
LaFarge estimates that there would be 60 truck trips per day (one-way) carrying raw
material between the two sites. This would equate to 30 truck trips per day (round-
trip) on CR-103 between the Powers Site and Cerise Site.
The Cerise pit is authorized for 12 hours of truck hauling per workday (7am-7pm),
according to the County conditions of approval. Assuming a uniform distribution of
trips throughout the day, this would equate to the following peak-hour trips for the
Powers Site. Please note that total trips were generally rounded up to the nearest five
for all the following figures and calculations.
Table 3 -Peak Hour Trip Estimates by Trip Type -Powers Site
Peak Hour Trip Estimates (one-wav)
Trip Type AM Period (vph) PM Period (vph)
In Out In Out
Aaarectate & Asphalt Trucks 0 0 0 0
Concrete Trucks 7 7 7 7
Special Aaarectate Import Trucks 1 1 1 1
Emolovees 15 0 0 15
Miscellaneous 1 1 1 1
Aaareoate Import -Cerise to Powers 3 3 3 3
Total 27 12 12 27
12
(
(
As indicated, all intersections will operate acceptably with peak season activity at the
Cerise site. As noted earlier, site traffic used in these analyses reflects peak traffic at
or near site capacity during the peak season. It must also be noted that site opera-
tions are expected to end in 2027 -2028 which is well before the 2032 time frame
represented on Table 6. Consequently, conditions will be better than indicated most
of the time. Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix F.
VI. DESIGN ISSUES
A. Auxiliary Lanes on SH 82
Existing auxiliary lanes at the SH 82 -Crystal Springs Road intersection were re-
viewed. This review determined that the existing lanes are built to the following
approximate dimensions.
Table 7 -Existing Turn Lane Dimensions at SH-82 & CR-103
Lengths (feet) (1)
LANE TAPER LANE" TOTAL
WB Right Turn Deceleration 242' 285' 527'
WB Right Turn Acceleration (1) 210' 1,930' 2,140'
EB Left Turn Deceleration (1) 415' 1,930' 2 ,345'
EB Left Turn Acceleration 260' 225' 485'
•Includes storage where required
(1) Assumes closure of the existing access to the Powers/LaFarge Gravel pit and
batch plant.
Based on future long-term traffic demands, truck usage, and the posted speed limit,
current COOT State Highway Access Code design criteria would requ ire the auxiliary
lane designs indicated below:
26
(
(
Table 8 -Required Turn Lane Dimensions at SH..S2 & CR-103
Lengths (feet)
LANE TAPER LANE* TOTAL
WB Right Turn Deceleration 300' 800 ' 1,100'
WB Right Turn Acceleration 300' 1,380' 1,680'
EB Left Turn Deceleration 300' 900' (1) 1,200'
EB Left Turn Acceleration 300' 1,380' 1,680'
* Includes storage where required
(1) Includes 100 feet of storage to serve 85 PCEs.
Based on the above design criteria, the westbound right turn deceleration lane and
the southbound to eastbound left turn acceleration lane need lengthening . Both lanes
are located east of Crystal Springs Road and are not impacted by other access
points. To the west of Crystal Springs Road , the existing southbound to westbound
right turn acceleration lane will have sufficient length to meet current standards as will
the westbound left turn deceleration lane. Only striping changes and other minor
improvements should be needed for these lanes.
B. Radii
Given anticipated truck traffic, it is desirable to provide a WB-67 turning radius for
westbound SH 82 traffic turning north on Crystal Springs Road . This radius is also
desirable for site vehicles turning into and out of site access points along Crystal
Springs Road.
C. Crystal Springs Road Approach to SH 82
Crystal Springs Road intersects SH 82 at about 75 degrees making for a severe right
turn for westbound SH 82 traffic turning north onto Crystal Springs Road . This
skewed intersection will be improved with this project. Based on preliminary investi-
gations , it appears that an intersection approaching 90 degrees is achievable. The
exact approach angle will be determined during preliminary design .
2 7
(
(
D. Auxiliary Lanes on Crystal Springs Road
The Turnkey traffic study determined that back-to-back northbound and southbound
left turn lanes should be built between SH 82 and the Powers access to Crystal
Springs Road. Since the separation distance between SH 82 and the Powers drive-
way is about 425 feet and a continuous center left turn lane will be built between
these two intersections. This lane can be striped as directed by the County. This
area could provide 225 feet of southbound left turn lane at SH 82, 90 feet of common
taper, and 110 feet of northbound lane at the Powers driveway.
An eastbound-to-northbound left turn acceleration lane on Crystal Springs Road is not
needed . The outbound left turn volume is low at 3 vehicles per hour, or one vehicle
every 20 minutes on average. The northbound through volume is low in the 20-year
condition at 95 vehicles per hour. The State Highway Access Code says that "the left
turn acceleration lane may be dropped if the volume in the inside lane in the direction
of travel is predicted to be below 120 design hour volume." Additionally, northbound
trucks will be empty, the speed limit is low at 25 miles per hour and site distance is
good .
E. Median Improvements
The center median on SH 82 will need minor improvements related to the realignment
of Crystal springs Road.
F. Signage
Truck signs (W8-6) should be placed on Crystal Springs Road in advance of both site
access intersections. Additionally, stop signs (R1-1) should be placed on the site
driveway approaches to Crystal Springs Road .
28
(
(
G. Sight Distance
Sight distance was found to be in excess of 1,500 feet in both directions at the SH 82
-Crystal Springs Road intersection. This is more than adequate for the posted
speed.
Site access locations along Crystal Springs Road were chosen to take advantage of
the roadway alignment and maximize sight distance. Required sight distances should
be verified during the design process with the driveway(s) shifted or other sight dis-
tance enhancements made as needed.
VII. COOT ACCESS PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS
The Project does not directly access any state highways. However, the addition of
site traffic in 2012 would increase the amount of traffic by more than 20% at the
Crystal Springs Road (CR 103) connection (north leg) to SH-82. The State Highway
Access Code requires COOT access permitting when traffic volumes increase by
more than 20% from existing conditions, or when highway improvements are neces-
sary. The following tables summarize the volume comparison necessary to identify
permitting needs.
Table 9 -COOT Access Permitting on SH-82 @ CR-103 (North Leg)
2010 COOT Peak Future Peak Year& % Permit Intersection Condition Hour Hour Volume Condition Increase Required Traffic with Project•
Volume by 2012
SH-82 & AM 87 185 2012 with 212% Projects CR 103 2012 with Yes
North Leg PM 88 180 Projects 204%
• The permitted volume should be 205 vph which matches the future conditions in year 2032.
29
(
(
(
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above documented analyses and investigations, the following can be
concluded:
• Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Cerise and Pow-
ers site.
• The site will generate 120 morning and afternoon highway peak hour trips, and
890 trips per day at full site utilization. This traffic represents peak day, peak
season activity with the combined Cerise and Powers sites operating at or near
capacity. These trips can be easily managed.
• On an average annual day, an estimated 60 morning and afternoon peak hour
site trips, and 445 daily site trips are expected.
• All warranted auxiliary lanes currently exist at the SH 82 -Crystal Springs
Road intersection. The lanes to the east of Crystal Springs Road, however, are
substandard based on current Access Code criteria. These lanes should be
improved to meet current design standards. The lanes west of Crystal Springs
Road are acceptable in their current form.
• No auxiliary lanes will be warranted at the Crystal Springs Road intersection
with the Cerise Access. However, northbound and southbound left turn lanes
on Crystal Springs Road will be needed at the Powers driveway and SH 82, re-
spectively.
• Turning radii at the SH 82 -Crystal Springs Road and the Crystal Springs Road
-site access intersections should be capable of serving a WB-67 design ve-
hicle.
• Truck warning signs should be installed on the Crystal Springs Road ap-
proaches to both site driveways with stop signs installed on the driveway ap-
proaches to Crystal Springs Road.
30
(
(
(
• With the indicated improvements, acceptable operating levels of service will be
achieved and maintained through the long-term for all traffic movements at all
intersections.
In summary, Lafarge's combination of the Cerise and Powers sites will not adversely
impact the area street system. This is verified by the finding that the identified road-
way geometry will facilitate safe and efficient operating conditions for the foreseeable
future.
31
(
(
{
Tel : 303-792-2450
Fax: 303-792 -5990
May 12, 2014
Ben Langenfeld
Greg Lewicki & Associates
11541 Warrington Ct.
Parker, CO 80138
EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E., PTOE
RE : Cerise Mine Operating Revisions
Garfield County, CO
Ben :
P.O. Box 630027
Littleton, co 80163-0027
As requested, I have reviewed the current plan for the Cerise mine (Cerise) and com-
pared it to the previous plan evaluated in the 2012 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) which
was approved by the County and COOT. The review addressed two primary areas:
1. The applicability of the TIS to the current development plan for Cerise, and
2. The adequacy of improvements already built or those in the process of being
built based on the earlier plan .
Key criteria for each of the above indicated areas of investigation are noted below and
are followed by an assessment of the validity and relevance of each criterion to the
current plan.
1. 2012 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
SITE TRAFFIC
Site traffic related to the approved plan and the current plan is as follows:
Chan e
-20%
-44%
5 da 0
45/da -67%
10/da 0
(
(
(
As indicated, site generated truck traffic will decrease by 83 trucks per day, represent-
ing a decrease of about 25%. The number of employees will be reduced from 45 to 15
or about a 67% reduction. The overall decrease in site traffic is considered meaningful.
SITE ACCESS
Site access will remain unchanged from the earlier plan for the Cerise mine. According-
ly, the access location on Crystal Springs Road (CR 103) has been previously approved
by the County.
SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS
Traffic distributions expected with the earlier plan split truck traffic equally east and
west of Crystal Springs Road on SH 82 . This will remain essentially the same with the
current plan. Employee trips are also expected to reflect the distributions used for the
earlier plan.
PEAK HOURS
Site peak hour traffic was added to highway peak hour traffic to approximate worst
case conditions. Consequently, peak traffic is expected to occur at times similar to
those evaluated in the TIS.
BACKGROUNDTRAFAC
Traffic was counted at the SH 82 -Crystal Springs Road intersection in June 2010 as
part of the TIS. This traffic was adjusted upward to reflect future background traffic
consistent with the start of operations in 2012 and the long term horizon some 20
years later. CDOT's published 20 year growth factor of 1.60 was used in th is effort.
This growth factor is identical to CDOT's currently published growth factor for this sec-
tion of SH 82.
COOT was contacted to obtain traffic counts on SH 82 since the earlier study was com-
pleted . Per the study, SH 82 served 17,700 vehicles per day in 2009 based on CDOT's
latest available published data when the TIS was prepared.
Daily traffic on SH 82 since the traffic study was prepared is shown below:
(
(
(
Year ADT
2010 18,000
2011 16,000
2012 17,000
2013 17,000
As shown, traffic on SH 82 has decreased since the traffic counts used in the TIS were
conducted. Since 2010, traffic has dropped some 5 112% on SH 82 and has remained
below 2010 levels since that time. Accordingly, background traffic used in the TIS may
be somewhat high and therefore, the analyses present a conservative outlook.
OPERATING CONDmONS
The TIS demonstrated that long term intersection levels of service with Cerise traffic
will be acceptable. With less site traffic and possibly lower background traffic, accepta-
ble and improved operations are expected in the future.
2 . IMPROVEMENTS
Per our discussion, the improvements recommended in the TIS have been designed,
approved , and constructed at the SH 82 -Crystal Springs Road intersection with drive-
way improvements currently in process. Major improvements include:
• Improved turning radii at the SH 82 -Crystal Springs Road intersection.
• Improving the southbound to eastbound left turn acceleration lane and the
westbound right turn deceleration lane on SH 82 at Crystal Springs Road to cur-
rent COOT standards.
• Improving the approach angle of Crystal Springs Road to SH 82 and providing a
southbound left turn lane at this intersection.
• Driveway construction, striping changes and signing enhancements.
The above improvements should be acceptable since they are either speed limit based,
which has not changed, or traffic based, which will be less than anticipated . Conse-
quently, the improvements will serve the combination of site traffic and background
traffic through the long term.
(
(
(
SUMMARY
Based on the above reviews, evaluations, and comparisons, it is concluded that:
1. Site traffic will be some 25% lower than the site traffic evaluated in the April
2012 traffic impact study.
2. Background traffic will likely be less than estimated in the TIS given stable or de-
clining traffic on SH 82 since the TIS was prepared.
3. Long term operating conditions contained in the TIS were determined accepta-
ble; however, with the expected reduction in site traffic and possibly less back-
ground traffic growth, improved operations are anticipated.
4. Recent roadway improvements will be sufficient to serve long term traffic de-
mands including Cerise traffic and are properly designed for the current speed
limit.
5. The traffic impact study for the Cerise mine remains valid and fully addresses
and demonstrates the acceptability of the current plan.
I trust this letter will be sufficient to allow the current plan for Cerise mine to proceed
under the earlier submitted and approved traffic impact study. Please give me a call if
you have any questions or need further assistance.
Sincerely,
~~
Eugene G. Coppola, P.E., PTOE
(
\ ATTACHMENT 2 -GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FROM RESOLUTION 201 t-44
(
(
(
(
(
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
LAFARGE CERISE MINE SITE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for:
Lafarge West, Inc.
Prepared by:
TElllA T ECI I
1900 South Sunset, Suite 1-F
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Tetra Tech Job No. 133-23511-10003
August I 0, 20 I 0
( 11;) TETRA TECH
DRAINAGE REPORT
( CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2.0 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 2
2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................. 4
4.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 6
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 7
(
( Lararge west. Inc. TETRA TECH
Cerise Mi11e -Drai11age Report A11gmt 10, 2010
(
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
TABLES
Table I. Drainage Summary for Existing Conditions ........................................... .4
Table 2. Drainage Summary for Proposed Conditions, ......................................... 5
FIGURES
Figure I. Vicinity Map
Figure ER-10. Existing Conditions Offsite Basins
Figure ER -11. Existing Conditions Site
Figure ER-12. Proposed Mine Drainage Delineation Plan
Figure ER-13. Proposed Reclamation Drainage Delineation Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Supporting Calculations
Appendix B: 1 IEC-RAS Model
Appendix C: Soils Information
Lafar oe West. Inc .
Cerire Ali11e -Drai11age Report
TETRA TECH
A11g11.fl JO, 1010
(
(
(
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE-GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the drainage analysis and plan for the proposed Cerise Mine
located at the intersection of State Highway 82 and Crystal Springs Road east of
Carbondale, Colorado. (See Figure l: Vicinity Map). The project is bound to the west
by Crystal Springs Road, to the south by Highway 82, and to the north and east by open
farm land.
The land is currently used for agricultural purposes. A gravel mining operation with a
concrete plant and a temporary asphalt plant is currently being proposed at the site. The
purpose of this report is to discuss the existing and proposed grading and drainage and to
address surface water runoff issues.
The project has three phases included in the drainage analysis including the existing
condition, the final mining layout, and the restoration condition. This drainage report
provides the results of the analysis for all three conditions and includes the
recommendations for proposed drainage based on the Garfield County Regulations.
The proposed storm water plan has been developed to adhere to the requirements of
Garfield County, which requires that the existing runoff rates from the site are not
exceeded by the proposed condition for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Detention
facilities must detain or safely pass the 100-year storm event.
Lafarge West, Inc. I TETRA TECH
Ceri.fl! Mi11e -Drailmge Report A11gml 10, 2010
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
Cerise Mine Site
2.fJ DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
2.1 Existing Conditions
The Cerise Mine site of approximately 4 7 acres is located on the north side of Highway
82 on a high bench that is approximately 80 feet above the highway. The Roaring Fork
River is located to the south of the highway and another 25 feet+/-lower than Highway
82. The entire site is located outside of the floodplain and floodway of the Roaring Fork
River and sits over I 00 feet higher than the Roaring Fork River Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Mate for Garfield County, CO
(unincorporated areas) Community Panel 080205 18808.
Lafarge West. Inc . 2 TETRA TECH
C eri.fe Mi11e -Drail111ge Report A11gmt 10, 2010
(
(
(
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
Crystal Creek is a smaller stream that runs along the western border of the mining site.
This creek is not included in the FEMA mapping for the area. However, the river is over
25 feet lower than any adjacent mining activity and over 60 feet horizontally from the
closest grading extents. There will be no mining in the floodplain of the creek, which has
a I 00-year discharge of approximately 200 cfs.
The site is not visible from Highway 82 as it sits at the top of a steep embankment. The
site is currently used for agriculture and consists of open meadow with minor access
roads. A small irrigation ditch exists on the northern border of the site and a smaller
collection swale exists closer to the center of the field.
Surface water runoff rates and volumes are estimated using a combination of methods.
For the larger basins, the SCS Method is used assuming a 24-hour storm distribution,
initial infiltration loss of I inch and precipitation values determined using the NOAA
Interactive Precipitation Atlas. For the smaller basins, the Rational Method of peak flow
and volume estimation is used.
There are three offsite basins that contribute flow to the project site as seen on Figure ER-
i 0 and ER-I I. Basin A is the largest and includes Crystal Creek. All surface flows from
this basin reach Crystal Creek (without flowing through the project site) which flows to
along the western border of the site, toward the southwest under 1-1 ighway 82 in a 36''
culvert. The 100-year 24-hour storm is estimated to produce 198 cfs in Crystal Creek at
the project site.
Flows from the Basin B, the offsite basin to the north. are collected in the irrigation ditch
located just above the northern border of the project site. This ditch flows towards the
west and discharges into Crystal Creek.
Flows from Basin C (to the east of the project) follow a generally southern overland
direction. Flows reach the swale that is located along the north side of Highway 82 that
flows west toward Crystal Creek. This basin is included in the existing conditions
analysis to account for all of the potential flow that reaches the Crystal Creek culvert
under Highway 82; however, the flows from this basin do not otherwise have an impact
on this project.
The project site is located within Basin D. Flows from this basin travel to the south and
west, reaching Crystal Creek and the Highway 82 swale.
The runoff from the project area and contributing offsite areas all ultimately discharge
into Crystal Creek which flows under Highway 82 in a 36" CMP culvert towards the
Roaring Fork River. It should be noted that this culvert is currently undersized and
Lafarse West. Inc . 3 TETRA TECH
Cerise Mi11e -DraT,;;,ge Report A11gnst JO, 2010
(
(
(
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
flooding of Highway 82 is a possibility during the larger return period storms.
Redesigning the culvert is not within the scope of this project.
Refer to Table I for the total runoff rates for the existing site and offsite basins.
Additional calculation information can be found in Appendix A.
T bl 1 D . a c -ramae c s fi E . f C d.f umma ry or •xis m e on I IODS
Basin Drainage Area Discharge (cfs)
(acres) 25-year 100-year
A 2,029 81.3 150.4
B 136 7.8 15.2
c 307 33.2 63.4
D 142 10.1 23.3
Crystal Creek 2,614 108.4 198.2
2.2 Proposed Conditions
2.2. I Final Mining Configuralion Phase
The proposed development site will contain a gravel mining operation, which will require
the construction of gravel pits and processing equipment. See Figure ER-12. A large
tailings pond will be constructed near the southwest corner of the site. The tailings pond
will also serve at the detention pond. A minimum of 0. I 2 acre-feet will be required in the
pond to capture and detain the I 00-year runoff for proposed mining conditions. The
mining excavation operations will all be conducted on dry land as the excavation is not
proposed lo access the groundwater table. However, a stability analysis of the impact of
the pond on the adjacent slope is being conducted. Further information is contained in
the Stability Analysis Report for Lafarge Cerise Property.
During the development of the mine site, the excavation operation location will change
slightly until the final configuration can be achieved. Surface water flows will be
directed toward the tailings/ detention pond during all phases of mining operations.
I Iowever, as the exposed surface will be primarily gravel, it is expected that the
infiltration rate will be such that a small percentage of rainfall will actually reach the
detention pond. To be conservative, sizing calculations assume all flow will reach the
tailings I detention pond.
Storm water runoff from the contributing offsite areas will be routed in existing patterns.
Existing irrigation ditches will be maintained to convey offsite runoff around the site
where it will discharge into Crystal Spring per the existing drainage pattern. Storm water
runoff from the proposed site will be collected and routed into the proposed tailings I
detention pond where it will be reused for mining operations or allowed enough time to
Lafarge West. Inc. ./ TETRA TECH
Cerise /llim:-Drt1i1111gc Rep11rt A11g11.fl JO, 10/0
(
(
(
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
infiltrate into the groundwater. Table 2 includes the results of the drainage calculations
for proposed conditions. See Appendix A for additional calculations.
T bl 2 D . s fi r a c -rama gc umma rv or ro p ose dM'. C d·r mmg on I IODS
Basin Drainage Area Discharge (cfs)
(acres) 25-year I 00-year
Bl 123 42.0 49.2
B2 7.8 5.4 9.7
83 4 .9 5.4 8.8
84 0.1 0.09 0.16
DI 94 .8 8.2 16.8
02 45 7.1 13 .9
03 2.85 2.IO 3.8
04 3.35 2.73 4.9
05 0.27 0.44 0 .64
The concrete batch plant that will be on site will remain in the same location throughout
the life of the mining operations . The asphalt plant is temporary and will move with the
agg regate plant. This area will drain toward the southwest and runoff will be diverted
through an oil and grease separator before being discharged into the tailings I detention
pond .
2.2.2 Reclamation Phase
The reclamation phase will consist of the final basin lowered approximately I 00 feet ,
with 3 :1 slopes and bottom, all revegetated to mimic existing conditions. A gravel access
road will remain to access the bottom of the basin. See Figure ER-13. Flows rrom this
area will reach the bottom of the basin and will infiltrate into the ground water.
The tailings pond will be reclaimed back to original grade , half of which will slope
towards Crystal Creek and the other half will slope towards the lowered basin. This area
will also be revegetated. As no additional impervious area will be created compared to
existing conditions, detention of surface nows is not necessary to maintain existing
conditions flow rates.
2.2.3 Site Access
The site will be accessed by a new entrance road which will cross Crystal Creek . A 60"
HOPE culvert will be used to convey the IOO-year flow of 198 cfs under the road. A
HEC-RAS model was created to evaluate the impact of the culvert on the water surface
elevations. The culvert will be inlet controlled and will have approximately 5 feet of
Lafarge W est. Inc. 5 TETRA TECH
Cerise Mi11e -Drni11age Report August JO, 2010
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
head above the top of the culvert. The water surface will however be approximately 15
feet lower than the entrance road. The HEC-RAS model report is located in Appendix B.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Jn combination with surface conveyance features such as irrigation ditches, swales, oil
and gas separators and the tailings I detention pond, this drainage system design will
successfully control storm water runoff and prevent any increased runoff from leaving the
project site. Overall, the storm waler plan addresses bolh the quantity and quality of
runoff from the site and conforms to the requirements set forth by the Garfield County
standards capturing runoff, therefore lowering the post-development runoff rate from the
pre-development condition for the 25-year, 24 hour storm as well as Lhe 100-year, 24
hour storm.
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this Drainage Report for Cerise Mine was prepared under my direct
supervision in accordance with the provisions of the Garfield County Drainage Criteria
and was designed to comply with the provisions thereof.
Lafarge Wesl, Inc.
Cerise Mi11e -Drnillage Report
Alaina SJ)lrth
Registered Professional Engineer
State of Colorado No. 33005
6 TETRA TECH
August JO, 2010
( DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
5. 0 REFERENCES
Center for Watershed Protection. (CWP 1997) August, 1997. Stormwater BMP Design
Supplement for Cold Climates.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Interactive Atlas Website,
btt p://www .nws.noaa.gov/ohd/bdsc(noaaat las2. htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 2, Volume Ill-Colorado
Precipitation Frequency Atlas, 1973 .
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (SCS). August 1972.
National Engineering Handbook, Section./, Hydrology. Washington D.C.
Lararg e West. Inc. 7 TETRA TECH
Cerise Mi11e -Drai11age Report A11g11st JO, 2010
DRAINAGE REPORT
( CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
APPENDIX A
Supporting Calculations
(
Lafarge West. Inc. TETRA TECH
Ceri.fl! Mi11e -Drni11age Repf1rt A11g11st JO, 2010
(
(
{
I Map I
2-year 6-
hour
2-year
24-hour
-J-
1 6-hour
100-year
24-hour
Precipitation Frequency Data Output
Precipitation
(inches)
0.89 I
1.18
I
1. 98
2.58
NOAA Atlas 2
Colorado 39.43639°N 107.16667 •w
Site-specific Estimates
Precipitation
Intensity (in/hr)
0.15 I
0.05
I
0.33
0.11
~ydrometeo~oloqical Deaion studies Cantor -NOAA./Hational Weather Service
1325 Ea1t-We1t Hi9hway -Silver Sprin9, MD 20910 -(301) 713-1669
Wed Jul 28 17:12:10 2010
-
Dt!l0elope1/ R111ro/f Calculntion.r
Basin Basin""'• Basin lmnrn·iousncn
Arca Soi>Typc B Gra\·el ( ac J Asphall Roof (:icl La\\n (ac)
Bl 118 12 118.12 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 118.12
B2 7 87 7 87 0 .00 019 0.00 7.68
B3 547 5 47 0.45 081 0 .08 4.13
B4 010 010 0 00 0 0 0 0.00 0 .10
DI 94 .79 9U'> 0.00 0.11'0 0.00 '14 .7'1
02 4S 02 -1502 1.47 0.00 0.31 43 2-1
03 2.85 VIS 0.00 0 .00 0.00 285
04 3 .35 3.35 0.03 0 .00 0.00 3.32
OS 0.27 0 27 0 II 0 II 000 0.05
Soil Runoff C~fir~nt T11hlc
2 Yr 5 Yr 10Yr 25 Yr IOOYr
!i7.4 0.349 0 394 0444 0494 0 .550
10.9 0 .125 0.20-t 0 .27 5 0.35-1 0 .444
.u 0.D38 0098 0 176 0 .276 0 .376
3.8 0 .035 0095 0 173 0273 0 .373
2.J 0 .02'> 0089 0 l&t 0.264 0 .364
2.0 0 .028 0088 0162 0262 0362
1 •· ..
2 .0
H
209
20
2 .0
3 .R
2 .0
2 .3
514
,--..
Cerise Mine
Run•lf c..,ficicnls l.c
2 Yr 5 Yr IOYr 25 Yr 100 Yr fl
0038 0098 0176 0.276 0.376 l&OS
o.m 0 204 0.275 0.35-1 0.444 1110
0028 0088 0162 0.262 0.362 65
0 .028 DORR 0 1<12 0.262 0.362 1050
0 .0 2'> 0 .089 0 164 0 .264 0 364 525
0 3-l'l 0.3'>4 0444 04'14 0.550 175
She lm~n·iousncss T:iblc
As phalt 100
Roof 90
Gra\'cl 40
La\\n 2
I-hour l'oinl Rainfall lkplh I
:? Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr :?5Yr 100 Yr
Pl 0 <•2 0 88 I OS 1.27 1.66
J'·\23511113 3-2 3511 -10003\SupponDocs\Calcslllydrology\Drainage Rcpon\Draina~e Rc po rt\RunolT Calculacions.xls
-
Tc ltninfall l•lrnsil\" I (in/hr) Duin ~lows Q 1crs1
mm 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 25 Yr 100 Yr :? Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 2S Yr 100 Yr
42 00 49.20
20.0 U2 I 73 2 .06 2.50 3.26 036 1 13 2.87 s 43 9 .67
16.2 1.36 I 93 2.30 2.78 3.6-1 0 .93 2.15 3.46 S.38 8.82
104 1.65 2 35 2.RO 3.3'> 4.43 0 .00 0.02 0.05 009 016
8 .20 16.80
710 13 90
15 .8 1.37 I 95 2.32 2 81 3.67 011 0.49 1.07 2 10 3.79
12.'l 1.51 2 1-1 2 55 3.09 -1.o.t 0 15 0.6-1 1.40 2 73 H2
11.0 1.62 2 2'1 2 74 3.31 4.33 0.15 0.24 033 0 .44 0 6-l
-r.--...,
Project: Cerise Mine -Existing Simulation Run: Run 1
Start of Run : 01 May2000, 03:30
End of Run : 02May2000, 03 :35
Compute Time: 10Aug2010, 11 :08:40
Basin Model : Overall Site
Meteorologic Model: Carbondale
Control Specifications: Control 1
Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak
Element (Ml2) (CFS)
Subbasin-A 3.1700 150.4 01May2000, 17:25
Subbasin-C 0.4805 63.4 01May2000, 16:15
Subbasin-D 0.2215 23.3 01 May2000, 15:55
Subbasin-B 0.2120 15.2 01May2000, 16:25
Crystal Spring Creek 4.0840 195.7 01May2000 , 17:10
--
Volume
(IN)
0.36
0.58
0.36
0.37
0.39
-
Project: 100-year Proposed Simulation Run: Run 1
Start of Run: 01 May2000, 03:30
End of Run: 02May2000, 03:35
Compute Time: 10Aug2010, 11:07:03
Basin Model : Overall Site
Meteorologic Model: Carbondale
Control Specifications: Control 1
Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak
Element (Ml2) (CFS)
Subbasin-81 0.1928 13.9 01 May2000, 16:25
Subbasin-02 0.0708 49.2 01May2000. 16:05
Subbasin-01 0.1480 16.8 01 May2000, 15:55
Volume
(IN)
0.37
2.55
0.38
--
Project: 25-year Proposed Simulation Run: Run 1
Start of Run: 01 May2000, 03 :30
End of Run : 02May2000 , 03 :35
Compute Time: 10Aug2010, 11 :05 :34
Basin Model: Overall Site
Meteorologic Model : Carbondale
Control Specifications : Control 1
Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak
Element (Ml2) (CFS)
Subbasin-81 0.1928 13.9 01May2000, 16:25
Subbasin-02 0.0708 49.2 01 May2000, 16:05
Subbasin-01 0.1480 16.8 01May2000, 15:55
Volume
(IN)
0.37
2.55
0.38
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
APPENDIX B
HEC-RAS
(
( TETRA TECH
Cerise Milw -Draiflage Rept1rt A11grt.ft 10, 2010
.,-...
€
c
.!2
ii > '11 w
_......
Crystal Spring Existing Plan : 1) Proposed 8/9/2010 2) Existing 8/9/2010
k ~~~~~~~~~~~~
6285 -
' 1
6280 1
i
6275 -+
6270~
62651
6260 ~
I
1
I
I
6255 ~
6250
6245 1
0
T
200
Crystal Creek Cerise Entrance -------~ I
400 600
Main Channel Distance (ft)
800
Legend
WS 100-YR-Proposed
WS 100-YR-Existing
Ground
(
(
(
CrystalspringExis.rep
HEC-RAS version 4.0.0 March 2008
U.S. Army corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering center
609 second Street
Davis, California
x x xxxxxx xxxx xxxx xx xxxx
x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x x x x x x x x x x
x x xxxxxx xxxx
PROJECT DATA
Project Title: crystal spring Existing
ProJect File : crystalspringExis.prj
Run Date and Time: 8/9/2010 2:56:32 PM
Project in English units
x x x x x x x x x x
xxx xx xx xxxxxx xxxx
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x xxxxx
Project Description:
This project includes 8 cross sections in the vicinity of the cerise Mine
proposed entrance. This model will be compared to the proposed model to
evaluate the impact of the proposed crossing at the entrance.
PLAN DATA
Plan Title: Proposed with culvert
Plan File p:\23511\133-23511-10003\SupportDocs\Calcs\HEC-RAS\CrystalspringExis.p02
Geometry Title: proposed conditions
Geometry File : p:\23511\133-23511-10003\supportDocs\calcs\HEC-RAS\CrystalspringExis.g03
Flow Title
Flow File
crystal creek Flows
p:\23511\133-23511-10003\supportoocs\calcs\HEC-RAS\Crystalspringexis.fOl
Plan Summary Information:
Number of: cross sections 21
culverts 1
Bridges = 0
Multiple openings
Inline Structures =
Lateral Structures
computational Information
water surface calculation tolerance =
critical depth calculation tolerance =
Maximum number of iterations =
0.01
0.01
40
0.3 Maximum difference tolerance
Flow tolerance factor = 0.001
computation options
critical depth computed only where necessary
Conveyance calculation Method: At breaks in n values only
Friction slope Method: Avera9e conveyance
computational Flow Regime: Subcr1tical Flow
FLOW DATA
0
0
0
Flow Title: crystal creek Flows
Flow File p:\23511\133-23511-10003\SupportDocs\Calcs\HEC-RAS\CrystalspringExis.fOl
Flow Data (cfs)
River Reach RS
crystal creek cerise Entrance 8
Boundary conditions
100-YR
198
Page 1
(
(
(
River Reach
crystalspringExis.rep
P rofi 1 e upstream Downstream
crystal creek cerise Entrance 100-YR Normal s = 0.01
GEOMETRY DATA
Geometry Title: proposed conditions
Geometry File : p:\23511\133-23511 -10003\supportoocs\calcs\HEC-RAS\CrystalspringExis.g03
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 8
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num "' 20
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6290 19 6288 30 6286 40 6282 44 6280
51 6276 58 6272 61 6270 72 6268 75 6267.7
90 6268 105 6270 120 6272 137 6274 153 6276
167 6278 180 6280 192 6282 203 6285 216 6290
Manning's n values num = 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 61 .038 105 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel Right coeff contr. Expan.
61 105 27.5 38.75 47.5
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 7.75*
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation oata num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6287.5 8.97 6286.37
43.34 6279.46 45.08 6278.89
58.29 6273.19 60.53 6271.84
80.5 6265.78 92.5 6266.25
125.05 6271.39 130.73 6272.24
155.33 6276.46 165.99 6278.46
195.5 6287.5
Manning's n values
sta n val Sta
0 .055 68.75
num=
n val
.038
31
Sta Elev
21. 41 6284. 77
49.59 6277.12
65.37 6269.71
104.5 6268
136. 79 6273 .19
172.02 6279.67
3
Sta
104.5
n val
.055
Sta Elev
21.67 6284.72
51.56 6276.25
68.75 6268
113. 31 6269. 57
143.8 5 6274.4
175.82 6280.45
.1 .3
Sta Elev
33.81 6282.55
57.48 6273.56
77.98 6266.11
116.8 6270.15
145.6 6274.73
184.84 6283.18
Bank Sta: Left Right
68.75 104.5
Lengths: Left channel Right Coeff contr. Expan.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance
INPUT
Description:
RS: 7.5*
Station Elevation oata num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6285 9.98 6283.58
48.23 6276.31 50.16 6275.79
64.86 6270.79 67.35 6269.23
86 6263.85 95 6264.5
120.03 6269.59 124.47 6270.48
143.66 6274.92 151.97 6276.93
175 6285
Manning's n values num=
Sta n val Sta n val
27.5 38.75 47.5
31
Sta Elev
23. 83 6281. 53
55.18 6274.24
72.74 6267.41
104 6266
129 .19 6271. 46
156.68 6278.11
3
Sta n val
Sta Elev
24.11 6281.48
57.38 6273.S
76.5 6266
110.87 6267.72
134. 7 62 72 . 8
159.65 6278.91
Page 2
.1 .3
Sta Elev
37.62 6279.1
63.96 6271.12
83.96 6264.21
113.59 6268.3
136. 06 6273 .15
166. 68 6281. 37
(
(
0 .055 76.5 .038
crystal springExis.rep
104 .055
eank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel Right Coeff contr. Expan.
.1 .3 76.5 104 27.5 38.75 47.5
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 7.25*
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6282.5 10.99 6280.79
53.11 6273.15 55.25 6272.68
71.43 6268.4 74.18 6266.61
91.5 6261.92 97.5 6262.75
115.02 6267.8 118.2 6268.73
131.99 6273.38 137.96 6275.39
154.5 6282.5
Manning's n values
Sta n val Sta
0 .055 84.25
num=
n val
.038
31
Sta Elev
26.24 6278.3
60. 77 6271. 36
80.11 6265.12
103.5 6264
121. 6 6269. 73
141.34 6276.56
3
Sta
103.5
n val
.055
Sta Elev
26.56 6278.24
63.19 6270.75
84.25 6264
108.44 6265.86
125.55 6271.2
143.47 6277.36
Sta Elev
41.43 6275.65
70.44 6268.68
89.95 6262.32
110.39 6266.45
126.53 6271.58
148.53 6279.55
Bank Sta: Left
84.25
Right
103.5
Lengths: Left Channel
27.5 38.75
Right
47.5
coeff contr.
.1
Expan .
. 3
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 7
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data
Sta Elev Sta
0 6280 12
78 6266 81
106 6264 110
134 6280
num=
Elev
6278
6264
6266
Manning's n values
Sta n val
num=
Sta n val
0 .055 92 .038
16
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
29 6275 58 6270 69 6268
92 6262 97 6260 103 6262
114 6268 117 6270 126 6275
3
Sta n val
103 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel Right coeff contr. expan.
92 103 31.67 35 39.33
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 6.66666*
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280 11.3 6277.8
54.64 6268.99 62.72 6267.29
76.4 6263.32 86.67 6261.33
98.67 6261.33 101.92 6263.3
110.61 6267.73 113.87 6269.64
132.33 6280
Manning's n values
Sta n val Sta
0 .055 86.67
num=
n val
.038
26
Sta Elev
21. 67 6275. 71
65 6266.83
92.3 6259.48
102 .12 6263. 39
115.93 6270.7
3
Sta
98.67
n val
.055
Sta Elev
27.32 6274.54
73.48 6264.88
93 6259.23
106.27 6265.63
123.65 6274.82
.1 .3
Sta Elev
42 .19 6271. 52
76.3 6263.34
95.27 6259.87
106.44 6265.72
124. 56 6275.35
Bank Sta: Left Right
86.67 98.67
Lengths: Left channel Right coeff contr. Expan.
31.67 35 39.33 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION
Page 3
(
(
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance
crystalspringExis.rep
INPUT
Description:
station Elevation
RS: 6.33333*
Data num= 26
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280
51.28 6267.98
71.7 6262.66
94.33 6260.67
107.23 6267.47
130.67 6280
10.61 6277.59
58.86 6266.15
81.33 6260.67
97.85 6262.59
110.74 6269.28
20.33 6275.35
61 6265.67
88.15 6258.74
98.06 6262.7
112.97 6270.35
Manning's n values
Sta n val Sta
0 .055 81.33
num=
n val
.038
3
Sta
94.33
n val
.055
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel
81.33 94.33 31.67 35
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: Cerise Entrance RS: 6
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 15
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280 19 6275 37 6270
76 6260 84 6258 85 6257.7
94 6262 99 6265 110 6270
Manning's n values num= 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 76 .038 90 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel
76 90
CULVERT
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 5. 5
INPUT
Description:
Distance from Upstream XS = 6
Deck/Roadway Width 45
weir Coefficient = 2.6
upstream Deck/Roadway coordinates
num= 3
SS 60
Sta Hi cord Lo cord Sta Hi cord Lo cord
0 6281 0 106 6282 0
Upstream Bridge cross section Data
Station Elevation Data num= 15
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280 19 6275 37 6270
76 6260 84 6258 85 6257.7
94 6262 99 6265 110 6270
Manning's n values num= 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 76 .038 90 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right coeff contr. Expan.
76 90 .3 .s
Downstream Deck /Roadway coordinates
num= 3
Sta Hi cord Lo Cord Sta Hi cord LO cord
0 6281 0 106 6282 0
Downstream Bridge Cross Section Data
Station Elevation Data num= 16
Sta Elev
25.64 6274.08
68.96 6263.76
89 6258.47
102. 54 6265. 26
121. 29 6274. 65
Sta Elev
39.6 6270.76
71. 61 6262. 68
91.13 6258.93
102. 72 6265. 36
122. 28 6275 .18
Right coeff Contr. Expan.
39.33 .1
Sta Elev Sta
SS 6265 67
87 6258 90
120 6275 129
Right coeff contr.
66 .3
Sta Hi cord Lo cord
205 6284 0
Sta Elev Sta
55 6265 67
87 6258 90
120 6275 129
Sta Hi Cord Lo cord
205 6284 0
Page 4
.3
Elev
6262
6260
6280
Expan. .s
Elev
6262
6260
6280
l
(
crystalspringExis.rep
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta
0 6280 13 6275 26 6270 49 6265 67
73 6258 80 6256 90 6258 95 6260 105
119 6270 131 6272 137 6274 140 6276 144
147 6280
Manning's n values num= 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 73 .038 90 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right coeff contr. Expan.
73 90 .3 .5
-
Upstream Embankment side slope
Downstream Embankment side slo~e
Maximum allowable submergence for weir
Elevation at which weir flow begins
Energy head used in spillway design
Spillway height used in design
flow=
0 horiz. to 1.0 vertical
O horiz. to 1.0 vertical
.98
=
weir crest shape Broad crested
Number of culverts = 1
culvert Name shape Rise span
culvert #1 circular 5
FHWA Chart# 55-circular Culvert
Elev
6260
6265
6278
FHWA scale # 1 -smooth tapered inlet throat
solution criteria = Highest u.s. EG
Culvert Upstrrn Dist Length Top n Bottom n Depth Blocked Entrance Loss coef Exit Loss Coef
10 45 .03 .03 0 1 1
Upstream Elevation = 6258.5
centerline Station = 85
Downstream Elevation = 6256.5
centerline station = 80
CULVERT OUTPUT Profile #100-YR culv Group: culvert #1
Q culv Group (cfs)
# Barrels
Q Barrel (cfs)
E.G. US. (ft)
w.s. us. (ft)
E.G. OS (ft)
W.S. OS (ft)
Del ta EG (ft)
oe1ta ws (ft)
E.G. IC (ft)
E.G. OC (ft)
Culvert control
culv ws Inlet (ft)
culv ws outlet (ft)
Culv Nml Depth (ft)
Culv Crt Depth (ft)
198.00
1
198.00
6266.78
6266.76
6259.40
6258.64
7.37
8.13
6264.99
6266.78
outlet
6262.52
6260.02
3.49
4.02
culv Full Len (ft)
culv vel us Cft/s)
Culv vel os (ft/s)
culv Inv El Up (ft)
culv Inv El on Cft)
Culv Frctn LS (ft)
Culv Exit LOSS (ft)
culv Entr Loss (ft)
Q weir (cfs)
weir Sta Lft (ft)
weir Sta Rgt (ft)
weir submerg
weir Max Depth (ft)
weir Avg Depth (ft)
weir Flow Area (sq ft)
Min El weir Fl ow (ft)
11.71
13.42
6258.50
6256.50
1.83
3.41
2.13
6281.01
warning: since the culvert has supercritical flow, the program should be run in mixed flow in order to
check if the cross section downstream of the culvert has supercritical flow.
Note: The flow in the culvert is entirely supercritical.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 5
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 16
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280 13 6275 26 6270 49 6265 67 6260
73 6258 80 6256 90 6258 95 6260 105 6265
119 6270 131 6272 137 6274 140 6276 144 6278
147 6280
Manning's n values num= 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 73 .038 90 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel Right coeff contr. Expan.
Page 5
(
I
(
(
73 90
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 4. 5*
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280 10.45 6275.4
36.57 6266.18 46.99 6263.53
76.6 6256.4 81 6255
101.09 6260.05 106.31 6262.16
129.09 6268.46 143.19 6269.98
152.43 6273.62 153.77 6274.26
Manning's n values
Sta n val
0 .055
num=
Sta n val
70 .038
20
crystalspringExis.rep
40 40
30
Sta Elev
12.47 6274.46
54.33 6261.44
88 6256.5
110.66 6264.08
143.73 6270.08
157.65 6275.82
3
Sta n val
95 .055
Sta Elev
19.85 6271.02
64.25 6259.37
95 6258
112.63 6264.82
148. 95 6271. 82
158.47 6276.19
.3 . 5
Sta Elev
24.93 6269.24
70 6258
100.88 6259.96
116. 75 6266 .13
150. 25 6272. 37
162 6278
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel Right coeff con tr. Expan.
70 95 20 40 40 .1 .3
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: Cerise Entrance RS: 4
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 19
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6280 10 6275 19 6270 35 6265 52 6260
67 6258 76 6256 82 6254 91 6256 100 6258
107 6260 113 6262 118 6264 125 6266 156 6268
162 6270 166 6272 172 6274 177 6276
Manning's n values num= 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 67 .038 100 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right
67 100
Lengths: Left channel Right
46.67 31.67 10
Coeff contr. Expan.
.1 .3
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 3. 66666*
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation
Sta Elev
0 6276.67
43.5 6259.68
65.4 6254.66
96.48 6258.55
111.03 6262. 77
158.21 6267.46
184.67 6274
Manning's n values
Sta n val
0 .055
Data num=
Sta Elev
8.66 6272.54
45.01 6259.19
70.33 6253.17
98.29 6258.98
119.16 6264. 55
165.77 6268.98
num=
Sta n val
58 .038
31
Sta Elev
16.45 6268.49
50.75 6258.08
74.67 6254
104.04 6260.54
120.94 6264.73
170.81 6270.43
3
Sta n val
87.67 .055
Sta Elev
30.3 6263.88
58 6256.67
79 6254.89
105. 37 6260. 95
134.4 6265.85
178. 37 6271. 95
Sta Elev
36. 25 6261. 99
65.05 6254.73
87.67 6256.67
110.34 6262.59
152.81 6267.15
180. 42 6272. 43
Bank Sta: Left Right
58 87.67
Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: Cerise Entrance
46.67 31.67 10 .1 .3
RS: 3.33333*
Page 6
(
(
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation
Sta Elev
0 6273.33
36.75 6258.84
54.8 6253.31
85.97 6257.11
103. 52 6261. 39
160.42 6266.93
192.33 6272
Manning's n values
Sta n val
0 .055
Data num=
Sta Elev
7.31 6270.07
38.03 6258.39
58.67 6252.33
88.14 6257.49
113. 32 6263. 09
169.54 6267.96
num=
Sta n val
49 .038
crystalspringExis.rep
31
Sta Elev
13.9 6266.98
42.88 6257.04
62.83 6253
95.09 6259.08
115.47 6263.36
175.62 6266.87
3
Sta n val
75.33 .055
Sta Elev
25.6 6262.76
49 6255.33
67 6253.78
96.68 6259.47
131. 7 6264. 93
184.74 6269.9
Sta Elev
30.62 6260.99
54.52 6253.37
75.33 6255.33
102. 68 6261.17
153.9 6266.57
187.21 6270.22
Bank Sta: Left Right
49 75.33
Lengths: Left channel Right
46.67 31.67 10
coeff Contr. Expan.
.1 .3
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 3
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num= 17
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6270 25 6260 30 6258 35 6256 40 6254
44 6252 47 6251. 5 51 6252 63 6254 78 6256
88 6258 96 6260 110 6262 129 6264 155 6266
194 6268 200 6270
Manning's n values num= 3
Sta n val Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 40 .038 63 .055
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left channel Right coeff Contr. Expan.
40 63 43.33 43.33 45
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 2.66666"'
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6273.33 11.06 6268.24
32.44 6260.22 36.13 6258.75
48.67 6253.33 54 6251.52
62.33 6251.38 75.33 6253.33
102.23 6258.27 111.95 6259.8
150.32 6266.54 157.71 6267.64
Manning's n values
Sta n val Sta
0 .055 48.67
num=
n val
.038
30
Sta Elev
18.43 6265.96
36. 5 6258. 57
56 6251.17
87.56 6255.07
113.64 6260.15
170. 52 6268. 65
3
Sta
75.33
n val
.055
Sta Elev
27.28 6262.69
42.58 6255.71
58 6250.9
95.47 6256.63
126.59 6262.45
182.11 6269.18
.1 .3
Sta Elev
30.42 6261.19
42.77 6255.63
61.47 6251.27
95.71 6256.68
129.13 6262. 94
187 6270.53
Bank Sta: Left Right
48.67 75.33
Lengths: Left channel Right
43.33 43.33 45
Coeff Contr. Expan.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 2.33333"'
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6276.67 13.03 6270.12
38.22 6261.11 42.57 6259.37
57.33 6252.67 64 6251.03
73.67 6250.75 87.67 6252.67
30
Sta Elev
21. 72 6267. 98
43 6259.15
66.5 6250.58
97.12 6254.14
Sta Elev
32.14 6264.34
50.17 6255.43
69 6250.3
103.23 6255.31
Page 7
.1 .3
Sta Elev
35.83 6262.38
50.38 6255.31
72.73 6250.63
103.42 6255.35
(
(
crystalspringExis.rep
la8.46 6256.SS 115.97 6257.9 117.28 62S8.31 127.3 6261.22 129.26 6261.88
145.64 6267.08 lSl.36 6268.82 161.26 6270.a2 11a.22 6270.36 174 6271.07
Manning's n values
Sta n val Sta
0 .oss S7. 33
num=
n val
.038
3
Sta
87.67
n val
.ass
Bank Sta: Left Right
57.33 87.67
Lengths: Left channel Right coeff contr. Expan.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: Cerise Entrance RS: 2
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation
Sta Elev
0 6280
49 6260
84 6250
145 6270
Manning's n values
Sta n val
0 .OS5
Data
Sta
15
58
1aa
152
Sta
66
num=
Elev
6272
625S
6252
6271.4
num=
n val
.038
43.33 43.33 45 .1 .3
18
Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev
25 6270 37 6266 44 6262
66 6252 77 625a 8a 6249.7
111 6254 120 6256 128 6260
161 6271.6
3
Sta n val
10a .ass
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right
26.25 35 42.S
coeff contr. Expan.
.1 .3 66 1oa
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 1. 75"
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6277.S 3.68 6275.57
25.76 6267.08 32.16 6264.95
S0.48 62S7.85 S9.76 62S3.92
82.25 6249.15 85.65 6249.48
109.21 6253.98 109.43 62S4.04
121.06 62S8.53 124.61 626a.41
146.35 6269.45 154.5 6269.62
Manning's n values
Sta n val
a .ass
num=
Sta n val
68 .038
32
Sta Elev
11. 95 6271. 36
38 .12 6262. 96
68 6251. s
86.5 6249.59
112.34 6255.07
125.42 626a.89
3
Sta
99.2S
n val
.OS5
Sta Elev
15.45 6269.62
43.19 6260.39
79.2 6249.55
99.25 6251.5
116.7 6256.38
138. Sl 6267 .64
Sta Elev
21.14 6268 .17
4S.33 6259.46
80.35 6249.42
103.61 6252.66
117.36 6256.58
140.01 6268.38
Bank Sta: Left Right
68 99.25
Lengths: Left channel Right coeff contr. Expan.
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 1.S"
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation
Sta Elev
0 6275
26.52 6264.16
51. 97 625S. 71
84.S 6248.6
107.43 6253.96
118.04 6259.02
140.7 6267.S
Manning's n values
Sta n val
0 .05S
Data num=
Sta Elev
3.78 6273.05
33 .11 6261. 96
61.S2 62S2.83
87.3 6248.95
107.62 6254.03
121. 22 6260 .81
148 6267 .6S
num=
Sta n val
70 .a38
26.2S 3S 42.S
32
Sta Elev
12.3 6268.91
39.24 62S9.92
70 62Sl
88 6249.06
11a.22 62S5.38
121. 95 6261. 26
3
Sta n val
98.S .oss
Sta Elev
15.91 6267.24
44.46 6257.59
81. 39 6249. 09
98.5 6251
114 .13 62S6. 92
133.67 6266.26
Page 8
.1 .3
Sta Elev
21.76 6265.45
46.67 6256.91
82.57 6248.94
102.41 6252.44
114.73 6257.lS
135. 02 6266. 76
(
(
Bank Sta: Left
70
Right
98.5
crystalspringExis.rep
Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr.
26.25 35 42.5 .1
Expan.
.3
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: Crystal creek
REACH: Cerise Entrance RS: 1.25*
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data num=
Sta Elev Sta Elev
0 6272.5 3.89 6270.52
27.27 6261.24 34.05 6258.98
53.45 6253.56 63.27 6251.75
86.75 6248.05 88.95 6248.42
105.64 6253.94 105.81 6254.01
115.02 6259.51 117.83 6261.22
135.05 6265.55 141.5 6265.68
Manning's n values
Sta n val
0 .055
num=
Sta n val
72 .038
32
Sta Elev
12.65 6266.45
40.36 6256.88
72 6250.5
89.5 6248.53
108.11 6255.69
118. 47 6261.63
3
Sta n val
97.75 .055
Sta Elev
16.36 6264.85
45.73 6254.8
83.59 6248.64
97.75 6250.5
111. 57 6257. 46
128.84 6264.88
Sta Elev
22. 38 6262. 72
48 6254.37
84.78 6248.47
101.2 6252.22
112.09 6257.73
130.02 6265.14
Bank Sta: Left Right
72 97. 75
Lengths: Left Channel Right
26.25 35 42.5
Coeff Contr. Expan.
.1 .3
CROSS SECTION
RIVER: crystal creek
REACH: cerise Entrance RS: 1
INPUT
Description:
Station Elevation Data
Sta Elev Sta
0 6270 4
47 6252 74
97 6250 100
112 6260 115
num=
Elev
6268
6250
6252
6262
num .. Manning's n values
Sta n val Sta n val
0 .055 74 .038
Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths:
74 97
19
Sta Elev
13 6264
87 6248
104 6254
124 6263.5
3
Sta n val
97 .055
Left channel
0 0
Profile output Table -Standard Table 1
Sta Elev Sta Elev
23 6260 35 6256
89 6247.5 91 6248
106 6256 109 6258
135 6263.7
Right coeff contr. Expan.
0 .1 .3
Reach River sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El w.s. Elev
E.G. Elev E.G. slope vel chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft)
(ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Cerise Entrance 8 100 -YR Proposed 198.00 6267.70 6269.22
6269.74 0.021545 s. 77 34.32 33.86 1.01
cerise Entrance 8 100 -YR Existin~ 198.00 6267.70 6269.22
6269.74 0.021545 5. 77 34.32 33.8 1.01
cerise Entrance 7.75" 100 -YR Proposed 198.00 6265. 78 6267. 54
6268.10 0.021155 5.99 33.08 30.37 1.01
cerise Entrance 7. 75"' 100 -YR Existing 198.00 6265.78 6267. 54
6268.10 0.021155 5.99 33.08 30.37 1.01
Cerise Entrance 7. 5" 100 -YR Pro~osed 198.00 6263.85 6266.71
6266.92 0.003758 3.69 54.95 2.20 0.47
cerise Entrance 7.5" 100 -YR Existin~ 198.00 6263.85 6265.92
6266.53 0.020476 6.23 31.80 26.7 1.01
cerise Entrance 7.25" 100 -YR Proposed 198.00 6261.92 6266.75
6266.83 0.000641 2.40 98.89 37.44 0.21
Page 9
crit w.s.
(ft)
6269.22
6269.22
6267.54
6267.54
6265.92
cerise Entrance
crystalspringExis.rep
7.25* 100 -YR Existing 198.00 6261.92 6264.38 6264.38
6265 .11 0.018785 6.88 29.15 21.64 0.99
Cerise Entrance 7 100 -YR Proposed 198.00 6260.00 6266.75
6266.80 0.000334 2.20 129.70 36.85 0.16
cerise Entrance 7 100 -YR Existin~ 198.00 6260.00 6263.19 6263.19
6264.08 0.015027 7.75 29.05 19.3 0.92
cerise Entrance 6.66666* 100 -YR Proposed 198.00 6259.23 6266.75
6266.79 0.000182 1. 77 164.77 43.24 0.12
Cerise Entrance 6.66666 .. 100 -YR Existin2 198.00 6259.23 6262.32 6262.32
6263.20 0.015638 7.66 28.28 18.7 0.94
cerise Entrance 6.33333* 100 -YR Proposed 198.00 6258.47 6266.76
6266.78 0.000104 1.44 205. 74 49.36 0.09
cerise Entrance 6.33333"' 100 -YR Existing 198.00 6258.47 6261.46 6261.46
6262.34 0.016436 7.58 27.74 18.30 0.95
cerise Entrance 6 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6257.70 6266.76 6260.61
6266.78 0.000062 1.18 251.36 54.21 0.07
cerise Entrance 6 100 -YR Existing 198.00 6257.70 6260.61 6260.61
6261.49 0.017716 7.54 27.22 17.97 0.97
cerise Entrance 5.5 culvert
ceri s e Entrance 5.5 100 -YR Existing 198.00 6256.85 6259.59 6259.59
6260.41 0.017791 7.33 27.83 18.95 0.98
cerise Entrance 5 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6256.00 6258.64 6258.64
6259.40 0.017569 7.06 28.90 20.49 0.97
cerise Entrance 5 100 -YR Existin~ 198.00 6256.00 6258.64 6258.64
6259.40 0.017569 7 .06 28.90 20.4 0.97
( cerise Entrance 4.5* 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6255.00 6257.73 6257.73
6258.41 0.020296 6.59 30.03 22.65 1.01
cerise Entrance 4.5* 100-YR Existing 198.00 6255 .00 6257.73 6257.73
6258.41 0.020296 6.59 30.03 22.65 1.01
cerise Entrance 4 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6254.00 6256.80 6256.80
6257.48 0.020268 6.64 29.82 22.18 1.01
cerise Entrance 4 100-YR Existins 198.00 6254.00 6256.80 6256.80
6257.48 0.020268 6.64 29.82 22.1 1.01
cerise Entrance 3.66666* 100-YR Pro~osed 198.00 6253.17 6255.83 6255.83
6256.51 0.020401 6.62 29.90 2.51 1.01
cerise Entrance 3.66666* 100-YR Existing 198.00 6253.17 6255.83 6255.83
6256.51 0.020401 6.62 29.90 22.51 1.01
cerise Entrance 3.33333* 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6252.33 6254.87 6254.87
6255.54 0.020256 6.61 29.95 22.52 1.01
cerise Entrance 3.33333* 100-YR Existin~ 198.00 6252.33 6254.87 6254.87
6255.54 0.020256 6.61 29.95 22.5 1.01
cerise Entrance 3 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6251.50 6253.95 6253.92
6254.60 0.018913 6.46 30.67 22.62 0.98
cerise Entrance 3 100-YR Existing 198.00 6251.50 6253.95 6253.92
6254.60 0.018913 6.46 30.67 22.62 0.98
cerise Entrance 2.66666* 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6250.90 6253.23 6253.15
6253.79 0.017222 5.99 33.07 25.74 0.93
cerise Entrance 2.66666* 100-YR Existing 198.00 6250.90 6253.23 6253.15
6253.79 0.017222 5.99 33.07 25.74 0.93
cerise Entrance 2.33333* 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6250.30 6252.47 6252.43
6253.02 0.018387 5.91 33.51 28.12 0.95
( cerise Entrance 2.33333"' 100-YR Existing 198.00 6250.30 6252.47 6252.43
Page 10
( crystalspringExis.rep
6253.02 0.018387 S.91 33.Sl 28.12 0.95
cerise Entrance 2 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6249. 70 6251.97
6252.33 0.011744 4.81 41.12 33.63 0.77
cerise Entrance 2 100-YR Existin~ 198.00 6249.70 6251.97
6252.33 0.011744 4.81 41.12 33.6 0.77
cerise Entrance 1. 75* 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6249.15 6251. 55
6251.93 0.011395 4.91 40.34 31.62 0.76
cerise Entrance 1. 75* 100-YR Existing 198.00 6249.15 6251. 55
6251. 93 0.011395 4.91 40.34 31.62 0.76
cerise Entrance 1. 5* 100-YR Pro~osed 198.00 6248.60 6251.16
6251.54 0.010548 4.97 39.91 9.66 0.74
Cerise Entrance 1. 5* 100-YR Existin~ 198.00 6248.60 6251.16
6251. 54 0.010548 4.97 39.91 29.6 0.74
cerise Entrance 1.25* 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6248.05 6250.79
6251.18 0.009813 5.06 39.48 28.33 0.72
cerise Entrance 1.25* 100-YR Existin~ 198.00 6248.05 6250.79
6251.18 0.009813 5.06 39.48 28.3 0.72
Cerise Entrance l 100-YR Proposed 198.00 6247.50 6250.40 6250.10
6250.83 0.010001 5.30 38.38 28.99 0.73
cerise Entrance 1 100-YR Existing 198.00 6247.50 6250.40 6250.10
6250.83 0.010001 5.30 38.38 28.99 0.73
(
( Page 11
DRAINAGE REPORT
CERISE MINE -GARFIELD COUNTY, CO
APPENDIX C
Soils Information
(
( Lafarge West , Inc;. TETRA TECH
Cerise llli1te -Drni11nge Report A11gmt JO, 2010
.
~
~
~
39• 25' 43°'
39•24'20"
N
A
Map Scale· 1 31 700 ii prinled en A size (8.5" x 11·1 Slleel.
Custom Soil , .esource Report
Soil Map
........ -========-.............. -===============:=MeteB
0 400 800 1,600 2,400 ........ -========-................ c:::==============~Feet 0 1.500 3,000 6,000 9,000
~
O>
§
39• 26' 48"
35· 24.25"
~ -....
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area or Interest (AOI)
D Area of Interest (AOI)
Solla
Soil Map Units
Specfal Polnt Feature&
~ Blowout
Im Borrow Pit
* Clay Spot
• Closed Depression
x Gravel Pit
.-. Graveny Spot
@ Landfill
A Lava Flow
~ Marsh or swamp
~ Mine or Quarry
® Miscelaneous Water
® Perennial Water
v Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
.. Sandy Spot -Severely Eroded Spot
0 Sinkhole
)> Slide or Slip
JI/ SodicSpot
= Spo~Area
() Stony Spot
Q) Very Stony Spot
t WetSpol
.a.. Other
Special Line Featur11&
~ Gully
• • • Short Sleep Slope
,,.. , Other
Polllfcal Features
o Cities
Water Features
CJ Oceans
Streams and Canals
Transporuiuon ....... Rails
..,.,,.,. Interstate Highways
,.,,.._, us Routes
Major Roads
MAP INFORMATION
Map Scale: 1:31 ,700 ir 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: hllp://websoilsurvey .nrcs .usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NADB3
This product is generated from lhe USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Aspen-Gypsum Area , Colorado, Parts or Eagle,
Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 5, Jun 9 , 2006
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: B/6/2005: 7/10/2005
The orthophoto or ocher base map on which the soM lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps . As a result, some minor shifting
of map unil boundaries may be evident .
~-...
.
.
(
(
3llS:l:IO J • 1 6 0
NOll\13Nl130 39\fNl~O j r-!
SNOl!IONO:> 9NllSIX3 II I J
CINM 'KUll.ta.)J.ff11ua11 a w M°'1on .. I I Cl:: JN"...... · 1 • 1 w J ~..:.~~ 'r1 I
'' 6 i ~ ~ • i ~ ~ , ~ -n Q I ~ ~ n
., nm I iid''i~~ i ~ ' a • a
o U I~ ,PdhlPf ~ j v j d -~·~·g ~t ~ ~ .-c~ D ' f ~ 11 ¥ e l! l! ll
~ 11 I 11 1 I I I ' ~ I • &
I ~ 3
11 ' I [ or a t I
i r i .~ I
! I I:' : I
I I I I : i I
____ _,--------
// '~-~
/ .... / ....
I ', I , . , \
I ' I
I I
I I
I ... ... • I
\ -I -, \ J. / ..... --,
I ,, ----\
I / - \
I I I • ' '· 'l I • -, I ' I I
I I • ~ I '/
j , 1... • Ir
I ./\ • jl:
\ I -... .... ·----.. )
I ' ' ' I ~ r------'/
\ -)--: ..: ~ -\ .
1 --.... • • • -• I I !. ~/ ', -\.~-_#____ 1
', .... · .. -@ ,~~~.~ -'I
I --..... iii ~· .... -•1 o/ \ --...... . -'
I , , // '"""'-----•"\ ' \ ,, . I \ \ .... .-•"'''.!:J/ ' .,..,,.-K! ,} " ) \ / .... , / \ /
\ /
\.-'
\" ·'
I
!
i
I
(
-~~ _____ _ ....... ______ __
(
3.US ' ~ t NOl.lV3Nl130 3SVNl~O jj ~ 1-
SNOIJ.IONOO SNl.lSIX3 9 I
1-11-----f--t--I ~ff"fWl0•1NO)J ll J nr QJtG .. 't'NClt:OW1 ;, l I Cl::: l
-==~ 1·111 w .., ..
• ~
~
0
i
I'
........ ,.,, I ~...-~Sll'llll C~i• t
l<Jl'4NJllla lJ.•3 ,.. ..
fi
I ! i
I ! I l . ~
~ ~ ~
f f • ~~ & ; g g • I ~ I t ' I • t . ~
x ~~ J
I
' I
I
6 ---._..,.,.,,.,,. .. .......i-<•-•Jlll 't'lwl.MC .. ,..._._tti.:IU'JU.."'.• •••;oCt.-:L'I
~~--------------, ' '
,I'
~
!
!
i ! g . ;
~ .
i
~ i . a
g ' ~ i
i i • • ! ;,
t
I
t I
I
I
l
N'o'1d
NOl1V3Nll30 39VNl>m0
3Nll'I 03SOdO~d
:1! ~~
t • . ~
.. ..
-.-... 1111..i-.,
~i ----~--~ --....... ---------------I ',
~ ' ' '
-........... _,,
NVld 'U §
N 0 11V 3 Nl130 3 !'.>VNIWO i ~
NO l.LVIW:l131:1 9 I
-+------1--1-1 t;NYldl0111NQ:J1H)AIOHC lt'YftOl~WJ , • l 0::: ,_..,.,. •1 LU ~·--1 J (ft) ~~..,....a.111 ~11 I
.. J«)1J~•1·~-
(
(
ATTACHMENT 3-PROOF OF SATISIFACTION OF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION
2011-44 CONDITIONS
(
Ben Langenfeld
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Green, Nathan J SPK <NathanJ.Green@usace.army.mil>
Monday, April 14, 2014 7:39 AM
Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials)
RE: Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing· Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Yes Pete. You are good to go. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nathan Green
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Sacramento District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Rood Avenue, Room 224
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563
0: (970) 243-1199 x 12
F: (970) 241-2358
Let us know how we're doing. Take our short customer survey at:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey
Our website address has changed: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials) [mailto:PSiegmund@oldcastlematerials.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:07 AM
To: Green, Nathan J SPK
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing-Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Hello Nathan,
I noticed that permit NWP-14 SPK-2013-00167 expires on April 12, 2014 and was wondering ifthe compliance
certification that I submitted was satisfactory to you.
Thanks Nathan,
Pete Siegmund
970-759-1501 cell
970-243-4900 office
Safely building The Preferred Source of quality sand, rock, landscape products, ready mix concrete, asphalt, paving, and
construction services.
{ -----Original Message----
From: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials)
1
(
(
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:37 AM
To: 'Green, Nathan J SPK'
Subject : RE: Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing -Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO (UNCLASSIFIED)
Nathan,
Relating to COE permit NWP-14 SPK-2013-00167 the culvert crossing on Crystal Springs Creek in Garfield County, CO has
been installed. Currently the depth of fill over the culvert is approximately 4' and not completed to finished grade
however placing the remaining fill will not affect Crystal Springs Creek. We are therefore submitting a Compliance
Certification for your approval.
Attached is an electronic signed Compliance Certification for this project.
Please let me know if this is satisfactory.
Thanks Nathan,
Pete Siegmund
970-759-1501 cell
970-243-4900 office
Safely building The Preferred Source of quality sand, rock, landscape products, ready mix concrete, asphalt, paving, and
construction services.
-----Original Message----
From: Green, Nathan J SPK [mailto:Nathan.J.Green@usace.army.mil)
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials)
Subject: RE: Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing -Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Pete , this works. I have updated the file. Thank you .
Sincerely,
Nathan Green
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Sacramento District U .S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Rood Avenue, Room 224
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563
0: (970) 243-1199 x 12
F: (970) 241-2358
Let us know how we're doing. Take our short customer survey at:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey
Our website address has changed : http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials) [mailto:PSiegmund@oldcastlematerials.com)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:57 PM
To: Green, Nathan J SPK
2
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing -Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Nathan,
Attached is a permit transfer letter for the Lafarge NWP-14 permit SPK-2013-00167 along with other associated
attachments.
Please let me know if this will be sufficient to transfer this permit to Oldcastle.
Thanks Nathan,
Pete Siegmund
970-759-1501 cell
970-243-4900 office
Safely building The Preferred Source of quality sand, rock, landscape products, ready mix concrete, asphalt, paving, and
construction services.
-----Original Message----
From: Green, Nathan J SPK [mailto:Nathan.J.Green@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials)
Subject: RE: Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing -Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
( Pete,
(
For transfers of NWPs see General Condition 29 of the NWP summary you attached in your email to me.
As far as extending the permit goes, if all work within the stream and wetlands has been completed, you do not need to
extend the permit verification. I hope this answers your questions. lf not get back with me.
Sincerely,
Nathan Green
Regulatory Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Sacramento District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 Rood Avenue, Room 224
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563
O: (970) 243-1199 x 12
F: (970) 241-2358
Let us know how we're doing. Take our short customer survey at:
http:// corps ma pu. usace.army. m il/cm_apex/f?p=regu latory _survey
Our website address has changed: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: Siegmund, Pete (Four Corners Materials) [mailto:PSiegmund@oldcastlematerials.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Green, Nathan J SPK
3
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lafarge Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing -Crystal Springs Creek, Garfield County, CO
( Hello Nathan,
Jam inquiring about a NWP-14 with an identification number SPK-2013-00167 that was issued to Lafarge relating to the
Cerise Mine Culvert Crossing -Crystal Springs Creek in Garfield County, CO.
We acquired the Cerise Mine from Lafarge so I am looking for some advice how we transfer this permit into Oldcastle
SW Group, Inc. name.
Additionally, the work started in November 2013 but was not finished. The culvert and headwalls were installed and the
fill over the culvert was placed and then work ceased. What is remaining is placing the gravel and asphalt paving. All
work within Crystal Springs is complete. Per Mark Gilfillan's email dated Friday, April 12, 2013 to Bill Arrasmith of
Lafarge, the permit will expire on April 12, 2014. The previously mentioned placing of gravel and asphalt paving will not
be completed by April 12, 2014 and I am wondering about the process of getting an extension of this permit.
I appreciate any help you can provide me with this.
( Thanks Nathan,
Peter J. Siegmund
Oldcastle SW Group, Inc.
2273 River Road
Grand Junction, CO 81505
970-759-1501 cell
970-243-4900 office
Safely building The Preferred Source of quality sand, rock, landscape products, ready mix concrete, asphalt, paving, and
construction services.
( Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
(
(
{
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
5
( ATTACHMENT 4-REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF STANDARDS
(
(
(
(
(
.)t(, Greg L ewicki And Associates, PLLC
11541 W~mington Court Phone: (303) ~6-5196 Fax (303 )-346-6934
Parker, CO USA 80138 E-Mail: in fo(~lcwicki.biz
October 21 , 2014
Cerise Gravel Pit -4-118 Waiver of Standards for OWTS
Clifford Cerise Ranch is applying for a waiver of standards with regards to On-Site Water
Treatment Systems and the proposed Cerise Gravel Pit. According to the Garfield County Land
Use Development Code Section 7-105 Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems:
A. Water Distribution Svstems.
a. The land use shall be served by a water distribution .\)is/em that is adequate to
se11•e the proposed use and densily.
b. Where waler sen1ice through a Water Supply Enlily is not physical or
economically feasible, a central well and dislriblllion ~ystem is preferred over
individual wells.
c. A Central Waler Dislribution System is required if:
i. The property is localed within .JOO.feet ofCenlral Water System, the
~J1ste111 is available and adequate lo serve !he proposed development, and
connection is practicable and feasible; or
ii. The residenlial development consists of 15 or more dwelling units.
B. Waslerwater Svslems.
a. The land use shall be served by a wastewater sys/em thal is adequate to serve the
proposed use and densily.
b. Eve1J 1 effort shall be made to secure a public sewer extension. Where connections
to an existing public sewer are 1101 physically or economically feasible, a central
collection .\)'Siem and trealmenl plant is preferred.
c. A central wastewater system is required if
i. The properly is located wilhin 400 feel of a Sewage Treatment Facility,
the .\J1Slem is available and adequate to serve the proposed development,
and conneclion is praclicable and.feasible.
ii. The property is not suitable for an OWTS. Septic .\)IS/ems are 1101
permitted on parcels less than 1 acre in size.
The waiving of the above applicable standards must be done according to the requirements of
Section 4-118.C. First the waiver must prove:
(
(
I. It achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or heller degree than the subject
standard.
The intent of the Section 7-105 standards is clearly stated in subparts A.a. and B.a.; the applicant
must provide sufficient water and wastewater systems to serve the land use in question: an
aggregate mine.
As an aggregate source for other plants and projects in the area, the Cerise Gravel Pit will have
very few employees. During the construction season, a maximum of eight employees can be
expected at the site. These personnel include the regular full time operator of the scale house, the
operator of the crusher plant, the operator of the wash plant, and operators of earth moving
equipment. With the exception of the scale house operator, all personnel will be working with
equipment in the active excavation areas, frequently tens of feet below the natural grade and
hundreds of feet from the entrance. Also, these personnel will be using equipment that is mobile
and will be located in various spots throughout the mine life.
To best serve the land use of aggregate mine therefore is to best serve the operational
requirements of the personnel at said mine. Such operations are best served by flexible water and
wastewater systems. Bottled waler can be kept with the personnel wherever they are on site.
Portable toilets placed near the mobile plants in the pit make it easier and more convenient for
employees to use said facilities.
United Companies uses bottled water and portable toilets at a number of its pits throughout
Colorado, and it is the standard for operations in the construction materials industry. Permanent
facilities such as ISDS and water wells are typically only constructed at operational "home
bases" that see significant year around employee presence. Cerise is intentionally designed to not
be one of these home bases.
{
(
(
Below is a list of nearly 20 United Companies operations in western Colorado that use portable
toilets and/or bottled water for employee needs:
Pit j Town I County
I. Hidden Valley Gypsum Eagle
2. Gypsum Ranch Gypsum Eagle
3. Eagle Fairgrounds Eagle Eagle
4. Scott Pit Rine Garfield
5. Rine Rifle Garfield
6. Glen Rine Garfield
7. Mamm Creek Rine Garfield
8. North Bank Rifle Garfield
9. Debeque Pit Debeque Mesa
10. 15 Road Fruita Mesa
11. Otter Creek Clifton Mesa
12. Janet Hotchkiss Delta
13. Campbell Hotchkiss Delta
14. Norwood Norwood Montrose
15. Colona Montrose Montrose
16. Spring Creek Montrose Montrose
17. Rozman Crested Butte Gunnison
18. Gunnison East Gunnison Gunnison
19. Berry Rio Blanco
As can be seen in the above list, bottled water and portable toilets are effective at serving the
water and wastewater requirements at aggregate mines.
A fixed water and wastewater system, such as a well and an ISDS, would not best serve this
operation, as it would be disruptive to personnel's worktlow. Mining and processing equipment
that personnel will be using will not always be located in the same place, so if the water and
wastewater systems have a fixed location they will frequently be inconvenient for personnel to
use. Also, requiring personnel to use fixed water and wastewater facilities increase traffic within
the pit, an area that sees frequent heavy equipment traffic, thus creating additional and
unnecessary safety risks.
(
(
(
Given the problems associated with fixed water and wastewater systems for an aggregate mine
like Cerise, which uses portable and mobile equipment, the land use is best served with bottled
water and portable toilets.
2. II impose~; no greater impacts on ac(jacenl properlies lhan wou/d occur lhrough compliance
with !he specific requirements o.f this code.
Portable toilets can and will be removed when there is no activity on site. Bottled water will also
be removed from the site when not needed. Fixed water and wastewater facilities would be
additional permanent installations at the site. Permanent facilities require regular maintenance,
and at aggregate mines, require additional activity during removal in final reclamation. The
additional construction, maintenance, and destruction of fixed water and wastewater facilities
would generate impacts that are not present with portable toilets and bottled water.
In the event of the installation of a fixed processing facility like a concrete batch plant, the
impacts generated by the construction, maintenance, and destruction of a permanent facility will
already be taking place. There would not be an increase in impacts by having fixed water and
wastewater facilities in that situation.
( ATTACHMENTS -MAPS
(
l