Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationEASTBANK SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL January 30, 2009 P.O. Box 469 I Basalt, CO 81621 MERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP t: 970/927-5288 1 f: 970/927-5287 1 www.meritagedevelopment.com EASTBANK SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL JANUARY 30, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Application Subdivision Application Form Agreement for Payment Proof of Ownership Owner Authorization Letter Vicinity Map Adjacent Property Owners Mineral Interest Owners Pre -application Conference Form Planning Narrative Appendix Exhibit 1 - Mining Exhibit 2 - Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Exhibit 3 - Wetlands Exhibit 4 - Wildlife Habitat Exhibit 5 - National Register Information System Exhibit 6 - Colorado State Register Properties Exhibit 7 - Geologic Hazard Evaluation Exhibit 8 - Soil Survey Report Exhibit 9 - Demographic Study Area Exhibit 10 - Paleontological Technical Report Maps Sketch Map Land Suitability Analysis Topographical Survey Garfield County Assessor's Map www.q Med i -county com o+ el f l• e/� 4 r e'r �14-2rr C 0 a( /- 14,,e ‹idl.e 470 qjz-eioy6. r' '7 6 if 1/70 1 c ' (pC e.s, 0.oc1 776 J -.C-- i1"2.. l70 9.).7-0-t? 7 e) ,).7-- `J- S ".c,C1 00 0 I Veia //o. /S 7& J-7 -S-61-41 i 6 Residential Single -Family Duplex ittloe Pr "1.11 I! 2 Sc k • t it,j4 41 01.1-41i 6 2.4 Lt Mobile Horne Units Lots r Size (Acres) Parkrnq Provided $E-2 t- 1-1"r ctcibitE kc Total (2) Commercial (3) Industrial (4 Public f Quasi -Public (5 Open SrPace /Common Area Total Finn .r,15__.a ISQ. ft A Size lAcres1 Parking Provided GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.oarfield-countv.com PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Norris Designs (Dena Vossman PROJECT: East Bank Development Project OWNER: McGreggor (contract to purchase by Mentage) 927-5288 REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Russell $ JP John Patrick of Meritage Development Group DATE: I/ 3/09 PRACTICAL LOCATION: [Section 35, Township G S. and Range 89 West] The old gravel mine Just south of the Orson "Budweiser" Distribution Center and north of IronBridge Golfcourse / Development off of CR 154 TYPE Or APPLICATION: Sketch Plan / Comprehensive Plan Amendment / PUD I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Meritage Development Group is proposing to purchase and develop the East Bank property to include an RE- I School site, ball fields, single-family neighborhoods, multi -family neighborhoods, affordable housing, and a neighborhood commercial component which intends to include a restaurant. Due to the complicated nature of the project, the Applicant's request to propose the development concept to the Planning Commission in a Sketch Plan Application so that they can get their comments prior to moving forward with a request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and proposed PUD. Initial Issues Discussed included: I . Alignment of intersection of CR 154 and SI -182; 2. RFTA Trail / Rail corridor 3. Commercial Components 4. Residential Density 5. Affordable housing (When and how accomplished) G. PC position on Amending Comprehensive Plan for specific property II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS (DEVELOPMENT CODE / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, STATE STATUTES, ETC.) > Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 > Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 III. PROCESS In this case, Mentage proposed a Sketch flan Review and potentially a Comprehensive Plan Amendment followed by a Planned Unit Development. (While the Sketch Plan is a separate action by the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plan and PUD can be combined into one application. The general process is outlines here: Sketch Plan: The Sketch Plan Review process shall consist of the following procedures and as more fully described in Article V, Section 5-30I of the ULUR: . Application 2. Determination of Completeness 3. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review 4. Review by Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Amendment: (See application form for process and criteria) I . Submit Application. 2. Determination of Completeness. 3. Schedule Public Hearing. 4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. 5. Review by the Planning Commission. Planned Unit Development (Preliminary): (Article VI of the new Land use Resolution) I . Submit Application. 2. Determination of Completeness. 3. Schedule Public hearing. 4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. 5. Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission. G. Schedule Public Hearing. 7. Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. 8. Review and Action by the Board of County Commissioners. 9. Decision by Board. Planned Unit Development (Final Plan Review): I. Application. 2. Determination of Completeness. 3. Schedule Public Hearing. 4. Evaluation by Director/Staff Review. 5. Review and Action by the Board of County Commissioners. G. Decision by Board. IV. Application Type: General Administrative Permit _ Limited Impact Review (Amendment) _ Major Impact Review (Amendment) _ Minor Exemption (Amendment) Major Exemption (Amendment) _ Rural Land Development Option Exemption (Amendment) Variance _ Floodplain Development Permit X Comprehensive Plan Amendment Vacating Public Roads * Rights -of -Way _ Boundary Line Adjustment X Sketch Plan (Optional) _ Conservation Subdivision _ Preliminary Plan (Amendment) _ Final Plat (Amendment) Corrected Final Plat _ Combined Preliminary Plan $ Final Plat Pipeline Development Plan (Amendment) _ Rezoning: Text Amendment Rezoning: Zone District Amendment X Planned Unit Development (Amendment) _ Small Temporary Employee housing Minor Temporary Employee housing c. Public hearing(s): None X Planning Commission X Board of County Commissioners Board of Adjustment c. Referral Agencies: (Division of Water Resources, Colorado Department of Transportation, etc.) The following agencies / departments will be contacted for their review primarily during the PUD review: ➢ Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District ➢ Town of Carbondale ➢ City of Glenwood Springs ➢ Carbondale Fire Protection District ➢ Glenwood Springs 4 Rural Fire ➢ RE- I School District D Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District D holy Cross Electric (Roaring Fork, S. of Co. River west) D Public Service Company (N of Co. River west) D Colorado Department of Transportation D Colorado Division of Wildlife (GWS Office: Canyon Creek East) D Colorado Dept. of Public health $ Environment (Attn: Mark Kadnuck) D Colorado Division of Water Resources • Colorado Geological Survey (Need prepay form) D Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining $ Safety D US Corps of Engineers D Roaring Fork Transportation Authority D Garfield County Road $ Bridge (Dist. 1 : Canyon Creek East, Dist. 2: Canyon Creek West and N. of 1-70, Dist. 3: 5. of 1-70) D Garfield County Vegetation (Steve Anthony) D Garfield County housing Authority (Geneva Powell) D Garfield County Sheriff Department (Jim Sears) D Garfield County Attorney D County Project Engineer V. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES a. Planning Review Fees: Sketch Plan $325.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $450.00 Planned Unit Development $500.00 b. Referral Agency Fees: $625.00+ (CGS) c. Total Deposit: Sketch Plan only$325.00 (additional hours are billed at hourly rate) General Application Processing Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to referral agencies for comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the appropriate hearing body. Disclaimer The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. Pre -application Summary Prepared by: January 14, 2009 Date EASTBANK, LLC FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST ELIZABETH MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST c/o Dunrene Management, Inc. 710 East Durant Avenue, Suite W6 Aspen, CO 81611 (tel.) (970) 925-9046 (fax) (970) 925-1162 September 15, 2008 Garfield County Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned are the fee title owners of that certain real property located in Garfield County, Colorado and legally described in Exhibit A to this letter (the "Property"), commonly known and referred to as either the "Jammaron Ranch" or the "Eastbank Property". By this letter, the undersigned hereby confirm that Meritage Development Group, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, is authorized to: (i) execute (as "Applicant"), submit, file, process, and pursue land use applications, and (ii) may, in connection therewith, negotiate the terms and conditions of related matters such as fee agreements, special use permits, or other applications, consents, permits and documents or instruments that may required by Garfield County, Colorado with respect to the Property. Any final agreement(s), plat(s) or recording instruments shall require the execution of the fee title owner of the Property at that time. Should you require any additional information or confirmation, please feel free to contact me at the address above. {00188952. DOC / 1) By: By: Very truly yours, EASTBANK, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: its Mana• - f Punrene M. ment, Inc., a Colorado Mic . - C. Maple, C;/ of Operating Officer GOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST CGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST Exhibit A to Authorization Letter A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANCH 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF TRE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND SOUTHWESTERLY OP THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT OF WAY LINE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, A REBAR AND CAP FOUND IN PLACE, WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, BEING A 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP BEARS S 37 DEGREES 33'42" E 2075.65 FEET; THENCE S 33 DEGREES 25'56" W 337.42 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE THE FOLLOWING 11 COURSES ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER: 1. N 72 DEGREES 23'29" W 716.30 FEET; 2. 9 87 DEGREES 57'31" W 342.00 FEET; 3. S 85 DEGREES 23'31" W 342.00 FEET; 4. S 66 DEGREES 08'31' W 517.00 FEET; 5. 9 48 DEGREES 53'31" W 332.00 FEET; 6. S 69 DEGREES 55'31" W 363.00 FEET; 7. N 79 DEGREES 51'21" W 181.97 FEET; 8. N 72 DEGREES 04'08" W 394.82 FEET; 9. N 58 DEGREES 38'29" W 198.91 FEET; 10. N 33 DEGREES 42'29" W 445.43 FEET; 11. N 24 DEGREES 30'30" W 284.67 FEST TO TEE WESTERLY LINE OP SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N 08 DEGREES 45'43" E 726.25 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE CENTERLIN OF SAID RIVER; THENCE N 37 DEGREES 51'14" E 155.85 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE; THENCE N 42 DEGREES 52'31" E 315.63 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE; THENCE N 01 DEGREES 55152" E 68.77 PEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 54'21" E 1682.30 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS 01 1960.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20 DEGREES 01'23", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 684.96 FEET, MW A LONG CHORD OF S 46 DEGREES 02'24" E 681.48 FEET; THENCE 9 56 DEGREES 03'05' E 324.44 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY L=NE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82; THENCE S 40 DEGREES 48'40" E 232.41 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 46 DEGREES 55'22" E 304.80 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE 9 51 DEGREES 02'19" E 111.93 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 54 DEGREES 30'40" E 186.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 55 DEGREES 51'49" E 181.61 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 37 DEGREE'S 02'15" 8 90.41 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OB COLORADO {00188952.DOC / 1} a 6- 4/.... „ 7 .� L MAW- Z4+"1 Mgt 4% 0 ‘)&1 .1,;51-10% f /zoo -7 . � ! ie 12ev« (Vey!. r- ,e PO ISO V/ V // . to r/624 1111111111111111111111 IIIII 11111111111111111111 11111111 692372 02/15/2006 02:51P 61772 P505 M ALSDORF 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 17.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Cozy Point, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership, whose address is % B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq., Krabacher & Sanders, P.C., 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado, 81611; for One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($170,000.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to the Flora Macgregor Irrevocable Trust dated December 27, 2000, whose address is % Steven M. Marolt, Marolt & Replinger, CPA's, 230 S. Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 an undivided six and one-half percent (6.5%) tenant - o in -common interest in and to the following real property in Garfield County, Colorado: ca See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein "—' Together with and equal undivided interest in and to hereditaments including water rights and interests, and all its appurtenances and warrants the title against all persons, subject to taxes for 2004 and thereafter, and subject to the matters of record as of the date hereof. SELLER: Cozy Point, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership, By,.c-cxe16:4G1 k,_ Darlene Friedland as President of Cozy Point Ventures, Inc., general partner. Date: .Su /y f 7 , 2004 STATE OF C l0rezC40 COUNTY OF j e Je-C- The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this /cF day of �C c / , 2004 by Darlene Friedland as President of Cozy Poiret Ventures, Inc., a Colorado corporation, the general partner of Cozy Point, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership. Witness my hand and official seal My Commission Expires My Commission Expires: 0213/2007 lGC 1 ublic Recording requested by: Thomas J. Hartert, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. PO Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-6466 1111111 11111 111111111111111111II1111111 111 11111 11111111 692372 02/15/2006 02:51P B1772 P506 M ALSDORF 2 of 2 R 11.00 D 17.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of Iand located in the South Half of Section 35, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly and easterly of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and southwesterly of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority right-of-way line and Colorado State Highway 82 right-of-way line more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly right-of-way Zine of Colorado State Highway 82, a rebar and cap found in place, whence the southeast corner of said Section 35, being a 3 1/4" aluminum cap bears S.37°33'42" E. 2075.65 feet; thence S.33°25'56" W. 337.42 feet to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; thence the following 1I courses along said centerline of the Roaring Fork Ri ver; 1. N.72°23'29" W. 716.30 2. 5.87°57'31" W. 342.00 3. S.85°23'31" W. 342.00 4. S.66°08'31" W. 517.00 5. S.48°53'31" W. 332.00 6. S.69°55'31" W. 363.00 7. N.79°51'21" W. 181.97 8. N.72°04'08" W. 394.82 feet; 9 N.58°38'29" W. 198.91 feet; 10. N.33°42'29" W. 445.43 feet; 11. N.24°30'30" W. 284.67 feet to the westerly line of said Section 35; thence N.08°45'43" E. 726.25 feet along said westerly line to the centerline of said river; thence N.37°51'14" E. 155.85 feet along said centerline; thence N.42°52'31" E. 315.63 feet along said centerline; thence N.01°55'52" E. 68.77 feet along said centerline to the northerly line of said South Half of said Section 35; thence S.89°54'21" E. 1682.30 feet along said northerly line to the southwesterly right-of-way line of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority; thence along said southwesterly right-of-way line along a non -tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1960.00 feet, a central angle of 20°01'23", an arc distance of 684.96 feet, and a Long Chord of S. 46°02'24" E. 681.48 feet; feet; feet; feet; feet; feet; feet; feet; thence S.56"03'05" E. 324.44 feet southwesterly righ-of-way line of thence S.40°48'40" E. 232.41 feet thence S.46°55'22" E. 304.80 feet thence 5.51°02'19" E. 111.93 feet thence S.54°30'40" E. 186.78 feet thence 5.55°51'49" E. 181.61 feet thence S.57°02'15" E. 90.41 feet of beginning. along said southwesterly line to the Colorado State Highway 82; along said southwesterly line; along said southwesterly line; along said southwesterly line; along said southwesterly line; along said southwesterly line' along said southwesterly line to the point 1 111111 Nil 1111111 1111 1111111 11111 111 11111 1111 1111 692373 02/15/2006 02:55P B1772 P507 M ALSDORF 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 17.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Cozy Point, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership, whose address is % B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq., Krabacher & Sanders, P.C., 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspera, Colorado, 81611; for One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($170,000.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to the Elizabeth Macgregor Irrevocable Trust dated December 27, 2000, whose address is % Steven M. Marolt, Marolt & Replinger, CPA's, 230 S. Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 an undivided six and one-half percent (6.5%) tenant- in-common interest in and to the following real property in Garfield County, Colorado: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein Together with and equal undivided interest in and to hereditaments including water rights and interests, and all its appurtenances and warrants the title against all persons, subject to taxes for 2004 and thereafter, and subject to the matters of record as of the date hereof. STATE OF CO %p rot- o COUNTY OF De..4 The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this /47 day of f / , 2004 by Darlene Friedland as President of Cozy Point Ventures, Inc., a Colorado corporation, the general partner of Cozy Point, L.P.; a Colorado limited partnership. SELLER: Cozy Point, L.P., a Colorado limited partnership, By: bSil'-1' �� t„ 466z ..02__ Darlene Friedland as President of Cozy Point Ventures, Inc., general partner. Date: Ju I / `� , 2004 Witness my hand and official seal My Commission Expires My Commission Expires: 02'13/2007 tary Public Recording requested by: Thomas J. Hartert, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. PO Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-6466 1111111 11111 1111111 111 11111 111111111111 111 11111 fIII 1111 692373 02/15/2006 02:55P 81772 P508 M ALSDORF 2 of 2 R 11.00 D 17.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of Iand located in the South Half of Section 35, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly and easterly of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and southwesterly of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority right-of-way line and Colorado State Highway 82 right-of-way line more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 82, a rebar and cap found in place, whence the southeast corner of said Section 35, being a 3 I/4" aluminum cap bears S.37°33'42" E. 2075.65 feet; thence 5.33025'56" W. 337.42 feet to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; thence the following 11 courses along said centerline of the Roaring Fork Ri ver; 1. N.72°23'29" W. 716.30 feet; 2. S.87°57'31" W. 342.00 feet; 3. S.85°23'31" W. 342.00 feet; 4. S.66°08'31" W. 517.00 feet; 5. S.48°53'31" W. 332.00 feet; 6. S.69°55'31" W. 363.00 feet; 7. N.79°51'21" W. 181.97 feet; 8. N.72°04'08" W. 394.82 feet; 9. 10. 11. thence N.58°38'29" W. N.33°42'29" W. N.24°30'30" W. N.08°45'43" E. of said river; thence N.37°51'14" thence N.42°52'31" thence N.0I°55'52" of said South Half thence S.89°54'21" E. E. E. of E. 198.91 feet; 445.43 feet; 284.67 feet to the westerly line of said Section 35; 726.25 feet along said westerly line to the centerline 155.85 feet along said centerline; 315.63 feet along said centerline; 68.77 feet along said centerline to the northerly line said Section 35; 1682.30 feet along said northerly line to the of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding southwesterly right-of-way line Authority; thence along said southwesterly right-of-way line along a non -tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1960.00 feet, a central angle of 20°01'23", an arc distance of 684.96 feet, and a Long Chord of S. 46°02'24" E. 681.48 feet; thence 5.56°03'05" E. 324.44 feet along said southwesterly line to the southwesterly righ-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 82; thence S.40°48'40" E. 232.41 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S.46°55'22" E. 304.80 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S.51°02'19" E. 111.93 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S.54°30'40" E. 186.78 feet along said southwesterly line; thence 5,55°51'49" E. 181.61 feet along said southwesterly line' thence S.57°02'15" E. 90.41 feet along said southwesterly line to the point of beginning. 111111 111111111111 111 1111111 111 1111111 III 11111 ILII 1111 697251 05/05/2006 12:31P B1796 P192 M RLSDORF 1 of 3 R 16.00 D 125.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO o'clock N. RECORDE ay DEPUTY. WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Bade on this day of May 03, 2006 , between COZY POINT, L.P., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP of the County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO EASTBANK, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY of the Grantor(s), and whose Lagel address is -1315 SAGE COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 cf the County of PITKIN and State of COLORADO , of the Grantee(s): WITNESS, That the Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the aua of ($1,250,000.00 ) ***One Million Twa flundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 .r*+ DOT_,T_4RS the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey end confirm unto the Grantee(s), his heirs and assigns forever, all the rest property, together with improvements, if any, situate, Lying and being in the County of GARFIELD and State of Colorado, described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED FTERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF also known as street number 3925 COUNTY ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 TOGETHER with all and singular and hereditaments end appurtenances thereto belonging, or In anywise appertaining and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right title interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Granter(s), either in Law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments end appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with appurtenances, unto the Grantee(s), his heirs and assigns forever. The Grantor(s), for himself, his heirs and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee(s), his heirs end assigns, that at the time of the enseating end delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has goad right, full power and Lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner end form as aforesaid, and that the same ere free and clear from all farmer and other grants, bargains, sates, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind er nature saever, RMo3Pr =NEWS TAMER AND ANSESEINNIME TAR TRE YHA Taos ARD EUASRQUENT YEARS AND =B.750T TO TEODg STEMS AS EAT PARTE ON EffiIaIT •E" ATTACEND ERRa-c AND miCDRPORas= s25tsxg. ADD (1) RENDOEMTIAL Lassagsrn aP CHELSEA apEr•rtsr (9) REsffiagc1Aa LHAEREOLD of EMT= CMARLYS; (3) RANCH/maa2ra0 LWAS= OLD aP LED JAREARRNI (4) seanassg LEA ss 'actorstBET OT Racrr aacemxe DISPOSAL, (5) BUM:NABS LEASE AGREEMENT OF 00g=D Ca5$2R0CTX0N; (6) CO-TRNAVOYABRATABMT Parma TMER0ARY Se, a002, (71 PROPERTY arAMILOMMONT AGREEMENT DATED P7$RUARY 19, SPOOF (E) ANY mom APPI.SCAELs, CURRENTLY MTTRCRTTR AGRERMEN:a APPECTENO TRE PROPERTY ERROv Yul EY MITEFR TEH CURRANT OREBR3 OR DUNRa151E MAYAOSMENT. Igo. AR 29R DE52GNAr$ PROPERTT MANAGER. The Grantor(s) shall end will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee(s), his heirs and assigns, against all and every person er persans lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, end the plural. the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor(s) hes executed this deed on the date set forth above. STATE OF COLORADO } 1ss. County of PITICIN ) COZY POINT, L.P., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: COZY BY: B. M 1. 1 w•, eif.tivnf•�.` YIN!' CT POR DARLENE The fcregeir,y instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of May D3, 2006 by E. JOSEPH XRABACHER ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR DARLENE M. FRII3DLAND, PRESIDENT OF COZY POINT VENTURES, INC., GENERAL PARTNER OF COZY POINT, L.P., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal. `Aiiec‘) NoC hu6lic Name and Address of Person Creating Newly Created Legal Descripticn ( 38-35-106.5, C.R.s.) Escrow# 214248533 When Recorded Return to: GALCC)Pts AND GREEN Title# 8W248533 Farm 82 08/29/04 WO.OPEN WARRANTY DEED (Photographic) P.O. DRAWER 790 GLENW000 SPRI 1111111 11111 1111111 111 1111111 111 111111110 11111 11111111 697251 05/05/2006 12:31P 81796 P193 M PLSDORF 2 of 3 R 16.00 D 125.00 GARFTELD COUNTY CO EXBIBIT A A 27% undivided interest as tenancy in common to the following: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH RALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE B9 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAR/NG FORK RIVER AND BOUT/WESTERLY OF THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82 RIGHT OF WAY LINE MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON TEE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, A REBAR AND CAP FOUND IN PLACE, WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35, BEING A 31/4" ALUMINUM CAP BEARS S 37 DEGREES 33'42' E 2075.65 FEZT; THENCE 9 33 DEGREES 25'56" W 337.42 FEET TO THE C NTEKLINE OP TRE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE THE FOLLOWING 11 COURSES ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER: 1. N 72 DEGREES 23'29" W 716.30 FEET; 2. S 87 DEGREES 57'31" W 342.00 FEET; 3. S 83 DEGREES 23'31" W 342.00 FEET; 4. S 66 DEGREES 08'31' W 517.00 FEET; 5. S 48 DEGREES 53'31" W 332.00 FEET; 6. 8 69 DEGREES 55'31" W 363.00 FEET; 7. N 79 DEGREES 51'21" W 181.97 FEET; 8. N 72 DEGREES 04'08" W 394.82 FEET; 9. N 58 DEGREES 38'29" W 198.91 FEET; 10. N 33 DEGREES 42'29" W 445.43 FEET; 11. N 24 DEGREES 30'30" W 284.67 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE N OB DEGREES 45'43" E 726.25 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE CENTERLIN OF SAID RIVER; THENCE N 37 DEGREES 51'14" E 155.85 FRET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE; THENCE N 42 DEGREES 52'31" E 315.63 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE; THENCE N 01 DEGREES 55'52" E 68.77 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE S 89 DEGREES 54'21" E 1682.30 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ROARING FORE RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT RAVING A RADIUS OF 1960.00 FEST, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20 DEGREES 01'23", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 684.96 FEET, AND A LONG CHORD OF S 46 DEGREES 02'24" E 681.48 FEET; THENCE S 56 DEGREES 03'05" E 324.44 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82; TRENCE 5 40 DEGREES 48'40" E 232.41 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 46 DEGREES 55'22' E 304.80 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 51 DEGREES 02'19" E 111.93 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 54 DEGREES 30140" E 186.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE S 55 DEGREES 51'491 E 181.61 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LIES; THENCE S 57 DEGREES 02'1S" B 90.41 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO TEE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO Form E%H;9;7A 01/17/03 9W248533 111111 11111 1111111 111 1111111 111 III{111 III 1111111111111 697251 05/05/2006 12:31P B1796 P194 M fLSDORF 3 of 3 R 16.00 D 125.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT ' BOur Order No. GW248533-5 RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNI TED STATES PATENT RECORDED May 20, 1899, IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 508, AND RECORDED JUNE 1, 1899 IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 510 AND AT PAGE 511 AND AT PAGE 512. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED May 20, 1899, IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 508, AND AS RECORDED JUNE 1, 1899 IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 510 AND AT PAGE 511 AND AT PAGE 512. UTILITY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED August 29, 1929, IN BOOK 161 AT PAGE 261 AND AS RECORDEDJULY 13, 1931 IN BOOK 164 AT PAGE 152 AND AS RECORDED OCTOBER 29, 1964 IN BOOK 361 AT PAGE 477. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT FOR WATER LINE RECORDED February 15, 1985 IN BOOK 664 AT PAGE 356. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO 97-92 RECORDED October 07, 1997 IN BOOK 1037 AT PAGE 381.. RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY. RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ROARING FORK RIVER. ANY QUESTION, DISPUTE OR ADVERSE CLAIMS AS TO ANY LOSS OR GAIN OF LAND AS A RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE RIVER BED LOCATION BY NATURAL OR OTHER THAN NATURAL CAUSES, OR ALTERATION THROUGH ANY CAUSE, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL, OF THE CENTER THREAD, BANK, CHANNEL OR FLOW OF WATERS IN THE ROARING FORK RIVER RIVER LYING WITHIN SUBJECT LAND; AND ANY QUESTION AS TO THE LOCATION OF SUCH CENTER THREAD, BED, BANK OR CHANNEL AS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION MONUMENT OR MARKER FOR PURPOSES OF DESCRIBING OR LOCATING SUBJECT LANDS. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT RECORDED February 02, 2001 IN BOOK 1230 AT PAGE 47. ENCROACHMENT OF FENCE ON THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1999, PREPARED BY WHITE SURVEYING. ENCROACHMENT OF CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON TO ADJOINING PARCEL AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1999, PREPARED BY WHITE SURVEYING. 111111111111111111111111111 Eli 1111111111111 Inn 575677 02/02/2001 12:03P B1230 P44 M ALSDORF 1 of 3 R 15.00 D 135.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Recording requested by: Thomas Hartert, Esq. When recorded, mail to: Thomas Hartert, Esq. 802 Grand Ave., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED VF 135,66 L 3. Mamm Creek Properties, Inc. ("Seller"), with an address of c/o B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq., Krabacher Law Offices, 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains, sells and conveys to Eastbank LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and whose address is 525 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen CO 81611 all of Mamm Creek Properties, Inc.'s right, title and interest in and to the following real property in Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of a sixty percent (6090 undivided percentage interest in the following real property: SEE "EXHIBIT A"; together with all its appurtenances and warrants the title against all persons, subject to taxes for 2000 and thereafter, and subject to the matters set forth on "Exhibit 1" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Date: February/8 , 2000 By: STATE OF COLORADO ) ( ss. COUNTY OF "lE� ) SELLER: MAMM CREEK PROPERTIES, INC. a Colo -do coArration B. Jo -h Krabacher, President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me February g, 2000 by B. Joseph Krabacher, President if _.MamaCreek Properties, Inc., a Colorado corporation. MAcL.MYGOMMIOK 5.22.2001 My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal C•CV,,,r,.c , Notary Pubic 2389\jammaron\29wd. jame.arcr.: Page 1 of 3 til lo: SeeeLhoL'� (5, 13a 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II11111111111111 575677 02/02/2001 12:03P B1230 P45 M RLSDORF 2 of 3 R 15.00 D 135.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit A to General Warranty Deed LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the South Half of Section 35, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly and easterly of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and southwesterly of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority right-of-way line and Colorado State Highway 82 right-of-way line more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a paint on the southwesterly right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 82, o rebar and cap found in place, whence the southeast corner of said Section 35, being a 3 1/4" aluminum cap bears S. 37' 33' 42" E. 2075.65 feet; thence S. 33' 25' 56" W. 337.42 feet to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; thence the following 11 courses along sold centerline of the Roaring Fork River: 1. N. 72' 23' 29" W. 716.30 feet; 2. S. 87' 57' 31" W. 342.00 feet; 3. S. 85' 23' 31" W. 342.00 feet; 4. S. 66' 08' 31" W. 517.00 feet; 5. S. 48' 53' 31" W. 332.00 feet; 6. S. 69" 55' 31" W. 363.00 feet; 7. N. 79' 51' 21" W. 181.97 feet; 8. N. 72' 04' 08" W. 394.82 feet; 9. N. 58' 38' 29" W. 198.91 feet; 10. N. 33' 42' 29" W. 445.43 feet; 11. N. 24' 30' 30" W. 284.67 feat to the westerly line of said Section 35; thence N. 08' 45' 43" E. 726.25 feet along said westerly line to the centerline of said river; thence N. 37' 51' 14" E. 155.85 feet along said centerline; thence N. 42' 52' 31" E. 315.63 feet along said centerline; thence N. 01' 55' 52" E. 68.77 feet along said centerline to the northerly line of said South Half of said Section 35; thence S. 89' 54' 21" E. 1682.30 feet along said northerly line to the southwesterly right-of-way lin of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority; thence along said southwesterly right-of-way line along a non -tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1960.00 feet, a central angle of 20' 01' 23", on arc distance of 684.96 feet, and a Long Chord of S. 46' 02' 24" E. 681.48 feet; thence S. 56' 03' 05" E. 324.44 feet along sold southwesterly line to the southwesterly right-of-wa line of Colorado State Highway 82; thence S. 40' 48' 40" E. 232.41 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S 46' 55' 22" E. 304.80 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S. 51' 02' 19" E. 111.93 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S. 54' 30' 40" E. 186.78 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S. 55' 51' 49" E. 181.61 feet along said southwesterly line; thence S. 57' 02' 15" E. 90.41 feet along said southwesterly line to the point of beginning, COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO Page 2 of 3 1 111111 11111 111111 hill 1111 1111111 11111 111 11111 1111 1111 575677 02/02/2001 12:03P B1230 P46 M ALSDORF 3 of 3 R 15.00 D 135.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit 1 to General Warranty Deed EXCEPTIONS The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1899 in Book 12 at Page 508 as Reception No. 21746. Right of way for ditches of the United States, as recorded May 20, 1899 in 21746. Easements and rights of Telephone and Telegraph Book 161 at Page 261 as Book 164 at Page 152 as in Book 361 at Page 477 location not described.) or canals constructed by the authority reserved in United States Patent Book 12 at Page 508 as Reception No. way as granted to Mountain States by documents recorded August 29, 1929 in Reception No, 105227, July 13, 1931 in Reception No. 110547 and October 29, 1964 as Reception No. 227425. (Specific Terms and conditions contained in the Easement for Water Line recorded February 15, 1985 in Book 664 at Page 356 as Reception No. 359483. Terms and conditions contained in Resolution No. 97-92 recorded October 7, 1997 in Book 1037 at Page 381 as Reception No. 514786. Right of way for the Denver and Rio Grande Western railway. Right of way for the Roaring Fork River. Any question, dispute or adverse claims as to any loss or gain of land as a result of any change in the river bed location by other than natural causes, or alteration through accretion, reliction, erosion or avulsion of the center thread, bank, channel or flow of waters in the Roaring Fork River lying within subject land; and any question as to the location of such center thread, bed bank or channel as a legal description monument or marker for purposes of describing or locating subject lands. Easements and improvements, including, but not limited to, ditches, fences, utility lines, and underground pipes, as shown on the Improvement Survey Plant dated September 17, 1999 prepared by White Surveying. Deed of Trust recorded January 5 , 2000 in Book J(0 at Page as Reception No. 5 5760 Page 3 of 3 Statement of Authority (C.R.S. § 38-30-172) 1. This Statement of Authority relates to an entity' named: EASTBANK, LLC 2. The type of entity is a: ❑ Corporation ❑ Non-profit Corporation ❑ Limited liability company ❑ General partnership ❑ Limited partnership 3. The entity is formed under the laws of State of Colorado. 4. The mailing address of the entity is: 710 E. Durant Avenue, Suite W-6, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 5. The t names and ® positions of each person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity are: a. Robert Duncan Macgregor, President of Dunrene Management, Inc. b. Michael C. Maple, Chief Operating Officer of Dunrene Management, Inc. 6. The authority of the foregoing person(s) to bind the entity is x❑ not limited 0 limited as follows: 7. Other matters concerning the manner in which the entity deals with interests in real property: 8. 3This Statement of Authority is executed by the sole Member on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 38-30-172. 9. 4This Statement of Authority amends and supercedes in all respects any prior Statem of Authority executed on behalf of the entity. Exec this Q day of March 2009 by the sole Member of Eastbank, LLC. ❑ Registered limited liability partnership ❑ Registered limited liability limited partnership ❑ Limited partnership association ❑ Government or governmental subdivision or agency Name: Robert Duncan grego STATE O • COLORADO )ss COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this T h day of March 2009 by Robert Duncan Macgregor as the sole Member of Eastbank, LLC. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: --7/ .z3 r z-...= i t Notary l uubblicc AUDREY ELLIS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO This form should not be used unless the entity is capable of holding title to rinin, Ate &ma Lon Expires 0712312011 2 The absence of any limitation shall be prima facie evidence that no such iiMitarl 3 The statement of authority must be recorded to obtain the benefits of the statute. 4 Strike if not applicable. COUNTY CO STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 1. This Statement of Authority relates to an entity named ELIZABETH MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000 and is executed on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of §§ 38-30-172, C.R.S and 7-30-105, C.R.S. 2. The type of entity is a: ❑ corporation ❑ nonprofit corporation ❑ limited liability company ❑ general partnership ❑ limited partnership ] registered limited liability partnership ❑ registered limited liability limited partnership ❑ limited partnership association ❑ government or governmental subdivision or agency ® trust (§ 38-30-108.5, C.R.S.) ❑ other: unincorporated non-profit association under § 7-30-101 et. seq, C.R.S. 3. The entity is formed under the laws of: State of Colorado. 4. The mailing address for the entity is: c/o Marolt LLP, 230 South Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. S. The Z name ® position of each person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity is: STEVEN M. MAROLT, TRUSTEE. 6. The authority of the foregoing person(s) to bind the entity is ® not limited rf limited as follows: 7. Other matters concerning the manner in which the entity deals with interests in real property: None. Executed this day of March, 2009. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of PITKIN 7" The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this v day of March, 2009, by STEVEN M. MAROLT, Trustee for the Elizabeth Macgregor Irrevocable Trust Dated December 27, 2000. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 7/2 --ii avarlaralliiaS AUDREY ELLIS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO y Commission Expires 07/23/20 Notary PuHlic ae 8 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 1. This Statement of Authority relates to an entity named FLORA MACGREGOR IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2000 and is executed on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of §§ 38-30-172, C.R.S and 7-30- 105, C.R.S. 2. The type of entity is a: ❑ corporation ❑ registered limited liability partnership [ nonprofit corporation ❑ registered limited liability limited partnership ❑ limited liability company n limited partnership association ❑ general partnership n government or governmental subdivision or agency n limited partnership Z trust (§ 38-30-108.5, C.R.S.) ❑ other: unincorporated non-profit association under § 7-30-101 et. seq, C.R.S. 3. The entity is formed under the laws of: State of Colorado. 4. The mailing address for the entity is: clo Marolt LLP, 230 South Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 5. The ® name ® position of each person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity is: STEVEN M. MAROLT, TRUSTEE. 6. The authority of the foregoing perspn(s) to bind the entity is Z not limited ❑ limited as follows: 7. Other matters concerning the manner in which the entity deals with interests in real property: None. fH Executed this i day of March, 2009. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of PITKIN ) lit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 6 day of March, 2009, by STEVEN M. MAROLT, Trustee for the Flora Macgregor Irrevocable Trust Dated December 27, 2000. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 7/7-3 /z i i AUD RELY ELLIS NotaryPtblic NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO "o---� nn lapires 07/23/2011 13mLk.. 1 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative Project Introduction and Site History Eastbank is a 110 acre proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) located within the Colorado State Highway 82 / Roaring Fork River Corridor just south of Glenwood Springs and north of the developed and still developing area of Carbondale. Since the adoption of the existing Comprehensive Plan in 1996, there have been significant enhancements and developments to the aforementioned corridor making Eastbank a perfect candidate for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This would bring Eastbank's designation in line with the past and current development of the area; therefore, it would not represent a "spot zoning" request. Adjacent existing developments in the area include Aspen Glen at 938 acres, Ironbridge at 533 acres, Coryell Ranch at 240 acres, Midland Point and the proposed Cattle Creek Crossing development at 282 acres and 979 units. Eastbank also sits adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and directly across from the existing Westbank community containing 104 residences. In the past, the property has been unable to secure the needed water and sewage treatment facilities needed to be properly developed, but with the inclusion into the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD), (refer to Appendix Exhibit 2) this is no longer an issue. The site was also mined for sand and gravel in the 1970's and 80's by Mobile Premix under Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology permit M-1975-004 and has since been certified reclaimed and terminated with the warranty and bond being released in 1997 by the State of Colorado (refer to Appendix Exhibit 1). In 2008, Lafarge did exploratory borings to determine if the site was suitable for additional mining and determined that it was not economically feasible. The Eastbank property also has existing intersection improvements with signalized access to HWY 82 from CO Rd 154 which were installed in 2001. Meritage Development Group hopes the staff, Planning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners recognize that this proposed Sketch Plan representing an associated PUD development is within a corridor that is largely developed and still developing. This Land Use Plan and subsequent development will have a positive impact on the community by (1) accommodating a much needed school site, (2) supplying affordable housing for its residents, (3) extending water and sewage treatment services, and (4) improving the existing intersection and trail alignments. Project Overview and Proposed Land Uses Eastbank is a beautiful real estate parcel located between Colorado State Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River. The 110 acre site showcases a variety of natural features including sloping hillsides, wetlands and riparian vegetation along the river, wildlife, and views to the river and surrounding mountains via the distinctly tiered landforms of the site that cascade down to the river's edge. There are two main entries to the Eastbank site which are located off County Road 154. Careful planning and historical context were primary considerations in the proposed location/shift of County Road 154. The proposed relocation of County Road 154 will meet all County and CDOT requirements as well as the recommendations of future traffic impact analysis prepared for the area. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 1 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative In 1996, when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the existing traffic light and fully signalized intersection did not exist at Highway 82 and County Road 154. Now that the intersection is in place, not only is the Eastbank property access much improved, but access to all of the residential communities and commercial properties located between the intersection and Carbondale (along county Road 109) is also much improved. Construction of the signalized intersection created a safe connection for residents to avoid accessing the highway at a point of high vehicular speeds without a signal. During initial construction, the new intersection was limited in the amount of land available to help with safe stacking for cars turning onto Highway 82. The sharp change in grade immediately off of the highway also was a challenge to construction and required a retaining wall to adequately turn County Road 154 into the intersection. Meritage sees an opportunity to work with CDOT and the County Road and Bridge Department to potentially re-create the stacking lanes leading up to the intersection on a portion of the Eastbank property in order to achieve a more practical grade change and space for safer stacking lanes. Meritage would also like to provide the adjacent Orrison property with permanent access through the Eastbank site in order to provide a safer access point for that property owner onto State Highway 82 via a signalized intersection. The access road into these properties will meet County traffic requirements, and be sized accordingly to handle traffic traveling through the Eastbank property from these properties. Since the long term future development of this area is unknown at this time the ROW will be sized to accommodate an expansion of the road width at a later date. The RFTA right-of-way (bike path) currently crosses County Road 154 at an awkward point. This creates a potential safety hazard for automobiles meeting recreational bike path users while trying to enter and exit the intersection. Meritage would like to work with RFTA to reconfigure the bike path intersection at the same time the improved stacking for the intersection is reconsidered. The grade change could allow for the road to pass over the bike path and keep the two uses completely separate and safe. In 1997, special use permit No. 97-92 was issued for approximately 5 acres on the southeast portion of the property adjacent to Co. Rd, 154. The current uses under the permit include equipment and vehicle storage for a local construction company as well as offices and equipment storage for a waste disposal company. Meritage believes that the proposed Sketch Plan provides a better suited use for the land and will enhance the overall visual impact to the site and to the entire river corridor. The special uses allowed on the site currently will be removed with the approval of the Final Plat of that area. The Eastbank property is currently zoned as rural. With this Sketch Plan, the proposed land uses would include a School Site, Sports Fields with Open Space Area, a Neighborhood Commercial District, Single Family Residential, and a Mixed Residential Area. Each of these proposed land uses are included in the Rural Zone District Table 3-501 of the County Unified Land Use Resolution, and will meet Garfield County roadway and parking requirements. The potential for shared parking between commercial users, school, residents, bicycle parking, and transit connections will also be explored with the development. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 2 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative The first proposed land use is an 18 acre School Site that will accommodate a combined campus for an elementary and middle school. A 14 acre Sports Field and Open Space area is also planned directly adjacent to the school site and will be centered within the community for easy access via trails or by vehicle. The 14 acre site will be initially developed as an open space park for use by the residents until such time as the school district begins construction, at which time the 14 acre site will be developed with ball fields typical for middle/elementary school uses. The homeowners and school will share in the enjoyment and use of the re -developed 14 acre park once students are occupying the school. Meritage and the RE1 School District have already discussed and agreed in concept to a shared use of the 14 acres in the future. At this time, there are no plans to light the sport fields in an effort to preserve and maintain dark night skies. The 9 acre Neighborhood Commercial District is envisioned as a pedestrian friendly environment consisting of a mix of neighborhood retail, personal service facilities, restaurant, and lodging uses. Although no specific uses are known at this time, the intent is to make this modest commercial portion of the development efficient and easy to access for all of the residents located between the Eastbank site and Carbondale, without the need to access Highway 82. Others obviously being served by this development include students, teachers, and parents coming and going from the school and park facilities. In addition to serving the Eastbank community, the proposed district will provide much needed commercial uses for the adjacent communities within the river corridor area. The proposed centralized location of the Neighborhood Commercial District is directly off of County Road 154 at one of the main gateways into Eastbank. This location will help in alleviating congestion on Highway 82 by providing easy access to commercial services for communities such as Ironbridge, Aspen Glen, and (proposed) Cattle Creek Crossing (assuming a second access point to Highway 154 is obtained) without those residents having to drive on Highway 82. The demographic analysis performed for this study area showed the current homes to be approximately 647 with an anticipated increase to 779 by 2013 (see Appendix Exhibit 9 - source is ESRI: Business Analyst Online Demographic Data). The residential areas located within Eastbank will consist of a 32 acre Single Family Residential area and a 37 acre Mixed Residential area. The Single Family area consists of approximately 2 acre estate lots. The Mixed Residential area will include a variety of single family homes, duplex homes, and townhomes with an affordable housing component. The variety of product within the Mixed Residential area will be intentionally diversified in terms of type and free market versus deed restricted. The single family homes in this area will be arranged in clusters of lots ranging in sizes from 6,000 square feet to a % acre. Duplex and townhome sizes would likely be in the 900-1800 square foot range. Siting of the homes will be sensitive to the natural landscape in order to provide view corridors to the Roaring Fork River. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 3 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative All areas within the Eastbank community will be linked by a series of trails. A variety of bike trails, open space trails, and sidewalks will connect each of the land use areas with community amenities, the river corridor, and the RFTA regional trail that is located adjacent to Eastbank. The trails will consist of either crusher fines or asphalt pavement, will vary in width from 3 feet to 8 feet, and will meet ADA regulations so they can be enjoyed by all members of the community. The current topography and benching of the site leads to a natural sheet flow drainage from the east side of the property towards the river. With site development, the Eastbank plan generally preserves of the natural benching of the site, and drainage will continue in some of its current patterns. In the more intense use areas, such as the neighborhood commercial and mixed residential, streets with curb and gutter will catch stormwater drainage and release into a detention pond. In the residential estate lot area a rural cross section, without curb and gutter, will be proposed and stormwater will be carried in roadside ditches. Affordable Housing Meritage recognizes the emphasis and importance Garfield County places on affordable housing and Eastbank will be a great opportunity to provide deed restricted housing that fits the local demand. Meritage is currently under construction on a 339 unit public/private partnership named Stratton Flats located in Gypsum, Colorado. It is a partnership between Eagle County, the Town of Gypsum and Meritage to develop a mix of free market and three varieties of deed restricted residential units. This project was years in the making and is now a reality, with the first closings of homes in February of 2009. Meritage believes this partnership and the structure that was created to develop the project is a formula for success and should be repeated in other parts of the region. The Stratton Flats project will deliver 66% of its total units as deed restricted housing, which could only be achieved through the private/public partnership and pooling of funds. Meritage would like to explore a similar project on a portion of the Eastbank property and has started having initial conversations to explore such a possibility. The structure of this type of approach is complicated and it will take time to see if a portion of Eastbank will be able to include a solution similar to that created at Stratton Flats. For now, Meritage will commit to providing the required 15% deed restricted requirement for the project. With the school site being part of the proposed PUD, Meritage hopes that a more substantial affordable housing project will, someday, be part of the Eastbank PUD. Landscape The overall landscape intent of Eastbank is to blend into the existing landscape of the Colorado State Highway 82 / Roaring Fork River Corridor. The landscape within Eastbank will consist of a water wise landscape palette with a mix of evergreen trees, shade trees, and ornamental trees in addition to a variety of shrubs and perennials that will provide seasonal interest. The entire site will be irrigated with water from the existing Grand Thompson Ditch. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 4 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative The Eastbank landscape palette will highlight highly visible areas such as community entries and community focal points with a dense planting of trees, shrubs, and perennials. The landscape palette will also provide a transition from the highly visible areas in order to blend with the natural landscape environment. This will be achieved with incorporating naturalized grass areas with clusters of vegetation and perennials. In addition to transitioning from highly visible/more intensely planted areas to a naturalized landscape environment, the Eastbank landscape palette will enhance the edges of the Roaring Fork River with a selection of native riparian vegetation. Natural Habitat The focal point of Eastbank is the Roaring Fork River and the views of it that are offered by the distinctly tiered benches that sit above. The property has over approximately 5300 linear feet of shoreline and the protection and conservation of this valuable resource are forefront in the planning of the project. The river has been given the designation of Gold Medal Waters by the Department of Wildlife for the exceptional trout fishing found here. Meritage is committed to working with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to provide fishing easements along the banks of Eastbank through a "Float Pull Off Easement" in order to enhance the "floating" experience. One wetland area has been identified (refer to Appendix Exhibit 3) adjacent to the river bank at the south end of the property. It is our intent to plan around this area to limit disturbance during the construction of the community. The benches above the river consist of irrigated pastures utilized for agriculture and ranching. A preliminary wildlife analysis highlighting the Eastbank area was conducted by Meritage Development Group using the Wildlife Profile Habitat Maps (refer to Appendix Exhibit 4) generated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Based on the Wildlife Habitat Profile maps the following assumptions have been made for Eastbank: o Within the overall range for Elk, Mule Deer, Black Bear, River Otter and Stream Fish o Within the winter range for Elk and Bald Eagle o Within the production area for Canada Goose o Adjacent to areas of highway crossing for Elk and Mule Deer o Within the winter concentration area for Mule Deer It is understood that a more detailed field study may be required in the future. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 5 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative Resource Areas The National Register Information System (NRIS) is a database that contains information on places listed in or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The NRIS is a computerized index that contains information on each of the historic properties listed in or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A search of the NRIS (refer to Appendix Exhibit 5) did not confirm any sites at Eastbank. The closest registered site is the Cardiff Coke Ovens located approximately 3.5 miles to the north of the Eastbank property. The Colorado State Register of Historic Properties is a listing of the state's significant cultural resources worthy of preservation for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado's residents and visitors. Properties listed in the State Register include individual buildings, structures, objects, districts, and historic and archaeological sites. The State Register program is administered by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) within the Colorado Historical Society. The Society maintains an official list of all properties included in the State Register. A search of the list (refer to Appendix Exhibit 6) resulted in the same findings as the NRIS with no sites identified at Eastbank and the closest being the Cardiff Coke Ovens. A paleontological resources assessment report was conducted by Rocky Mountain Paleontology in September of 2008. The report was prepared as part of the Glenwood Springs South Bridge Environmental Assessment study area, which partially overlapped the Eastbank property. The report identified no significant paleontological issues within the study area and recommended immediate paleontological clearance. The Eastbank vicinity is designated on the Garfield County Natural Resources map as an area consisting of aggregate, sand and gravel. Eastbank was once mined for sand and gravel under Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology permit M-1975-004 9 (refer to Appendix Exhibit 1). After mining was complete, the site was reclaimed and the permit was terminated with the warranty and bond released in 1997. In the fall of 2008, Lafarge visited the site and performed borings to assess the possibility of additional mineral withdrawal. At that time, it was determined that mining the remaining areas outside of the original permit was not financially feasible. Because the natural resources of Eastbank property have been extracted as much as possible, this proposed plan provides for an excellent reuse of the land and an environmentally sound contrast to the many developments along the Roaring Fork River that have locked the resources in place by building above them. Utilities and Service Facilities The Eastbank property currently sits outside the service district of Glenwood Springs and the district boundaries of The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). Meritage Development Group has had several discussions with the City of Glenwood Springs concerning extending water and sewer service to the Eastbank property. It was found in these discussions that water services would most likely never extend to this property and that the sanitary sewer service, which currently ends at Holy Cross, would only be considered for an extension at the time the new Sewage Treatment Plant went on line. In addition, Meritage Development Group met several times with the RFWSD Board to discuss the possibility of inclusion into the district. Following those meetings, a Petition of Inclusion was submitted to the Initial Submittal 01.30.09 6 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative Board in September 2008 (refer to Appendix Exhibit 2). On November 18, 2008, the Board voted favorably, (refer to Appendix Exhibit 2) to include the Eastbank property into the district pending certain conditions; one being the signing of a Cost Reimbursement Agreement, (refer to Appendix Exhibit 2) and the other being site engineering conditions which are to be negotiated among Meritage Development Group, the RFSWD Board, and their respective engineers. The current plans for the Eastbank site include connecting to the existing water and sewer infrastructure that runs through the adjacent Ironbridge community and ends at the northern boundaries of the subdivision. Presently, there are several options that are being studied with this scenario, and the most likely water extension will be a 12" water line from Ironbridge to the Eastbank site. The RFWSD water supply currently comes from ground water resources, thus they do not have a surface water treatment plant. Meritage Development Group does not anticipate being able to locate and drill wells with sufficient volumes to meet the RFWSD requirements for ground water augmentation; however, Eastbank has 85 shares in the Thompson Glen Ditch of which a portion can be converted to surface use EQR'S with a supplemental water lease contract to cover the off time of the ditch. The 85 shares are more than enough to supply the anticipated 300 EQR'S of potable water needed for development as well as raw water for irrigation. Meritage Development Group will build a surface water treatment plant at a location to be determined to augment the current water treatment system that supplies Coryell Ranch, Aspen Glen, Ironbridge and the future development of Cattle Creek Crossing. Meritage Development Group will work with all parties to determine the best site for an additional water tank, not only to supply the needed pressure for the Eastbank site, but to balance the existing system. Historically, the Eastbank site has been irrigated with raw water from the Grand Thompson Ditch and two existing wells have supplied a potable water source. As previously stated, the sanitary sewer system would also connect to the existing infrastructure that extends to the northern boundaries of the Ironbridge subdivision. A lift station at the lowest buildable elevation point of Eastbank would be required to pump through a forced main to the point of connection. The lift station will be located 50' from the high water line, and totally outside of the floodplain. It will be a minimum of 10' from a habitable structure, and 100' away from a habitable structure without odor control elements installed. Sanitary sewer would then be treated at the existing RFWSD waster water treatment site. The most likely alignment for both water and sewer, after connecting to the existing infrastructure, would be along County Road 109 and would then bore under the Roaring Fork River and extend up County Road 154 to the south end of the property. Electric and phone service are available at the property. A new natural gas line along Co Rd 154 from the intersection of 109 and 154 to property would be required to provide service. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 7 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Planning Narrative Conclusion The information included in this Sketch Plan narrative provides the County staff and Planning Commission with the relevant, key criteria necessary to consider Eastbank for future approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD. The Eastbank Sketch Plan has been sensitively designed in terms of natural site constraints such as slope, soils, wetlands and floodplain, and also is compatible with the adjacent existing and proposed land uses. Eastbank will improve the safety of the Highway 82 and County Road 154 intersection, improve safety and access for other properties that utilize County Road 154, and provide utility infrastructure to the site. Most importantly, Eastbank will provide public amenities to the community, including access along the Roaring Fork River shoreline for recreation and fishing needs, improved safety of the RFTA trail corridor which connects the County, and a much needed RE -1 elementary and middle school site. Through this Sketch Plan proposal, the County can grow in a responsible, sensitive, and sustainable manner. Initial Submittal 01.30.09 8 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Adjacent Property Owners Parcel # Owner Name Owner Mailing Adress 2185-344-02-006 The Destiny Manifest Trust 0/0 William D Traux, EA INC. 249 No Brand Blvd #316 Glendale, CA 91203 2185-344-02-004 Roaring Fork Land No. 4, LLC 0/0 Norman J. Bentford 1221 Brickell Ave Miami, FL 33131 2185-352-00-023 L&Y Jammaron Family LLLP 4915 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-9622 2185-352-00-015 Warehouse (vestment Partership 1111 Dunn Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82001 2185-354-00-059 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 530 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 2185-354-00-024 Shane & Bruce's LLC 4185 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2185-354-23-007 LB Rose Ranch LLC 1007 Westbank Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2185-344-02-008 Prehm Ranch Holdings, LLC 215 South Monarch, Suite 101 Aspen, CO 81611 2185-353-01-021 Cantrell, Lynne S PO Box 2104 Basalt, CO 81621 2185-353-01-033 Gould, Mark and Mary A 200 Oak Lane Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2185-353-01-034 Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association PO Box 2703 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2185-354-00-017 Rose, James L PO Box 432 Rifle, CO 81650-0432 2185-344-02-007 KBH LLC 1502 Dorchester Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Initial Submittal 1.30.09 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Adjacent Property Owners Initial Submittal 1.30.09 Eastbank - Subdivision Application Submittal Land Use Summary Residential Units/Lots Size (Acres Parking Provided Single Family - Estate 16 32 Per County Code Mixed Residential Single Family 77 18.5 Per County Code Duplex/Townhome 154 18.5 Per County Code Total 247 69 Floor Area (sq. ft Size (Acres Parking Provided Commercial 90,000 9 Per County Code (4/1000 sf) Public/Quasi-Public TBD 18 Per County Code Open Space/Common Ar TBD 14 Per County Code Total TBD 41 Initial Submittal 01.30.09 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: (303) 832-8106 Operator Operation: Permit No.: piv FINANCIAL WARRANTY CORPORATE SURETY Westem Mobile Northem Inc ncr•FIUED SL 1 on t p Go Ba -AO U L- 'Lochhead Director 8. Long _.rrsion Director 1MENT OI FLTRAI DURCE, by Westem Mobile Inc Jammaron Pit M-75-004 Bond No.: 11133252723 Warrantor: The American Insurance Company Street: 455 Sherman Street, Suite 390 City: Denver State: Colorado Zip Code: 80203 Area Code: 303 Telephone: 722-7776 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT: WHEREAS, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-101 et ss g. (the "Act"), as amended, provides that no permit may be issued under the Act until the Mined Land Reclamation Board (the "Board") receives a Financial Warranty (or Warranties) as described in the Act. WHEREAS, Westem Mobile Northem Inc (the "Operator"), a Delaware corporation, has applied for a permit to conduct a mining operation known as Jammaron Pit (the "Operation"), on certain lands in Garfield County. Colorado. These lands are described in the permit application, as amended and supplemented, and are referred to herein as the "Affected Lands". WHEREAS, in the application for the permit, the Operator has agreed to be bound by all requirements of the Act and all applicable rules and regulations of the Board, as amended from time to time. WHEREAS, in the application for the permit, the Operator has agreed with the Board to provide for reclamation of the Affected I -nods that are now, or may become, subject to the permit, as required by law. Jammaron Pit 11-2112 -2 - WHEREAS, the Operator and The American Insurance Company (the "Warrantor'), a corporation organized and existing nnder},the �laws of theta State of Nebraska and �y authorized to transact a bondin&ne Hun r dFiflge itotSa71 rP Colorado are hereby and firmly bound unto the State in the sum of Hundred Fifty Eight and No/100 Dollars (a $115,158.00 ) for the life of mine or until such time as replacement is received, for the payment of which sum, well and truly made, we hereby bind ourselves and our personal representatives, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Board has determined, in accordance with the Act, that the estimated costs of reclamation of the Affected J ands are those amounts for the stated periods of time as set forth herein. Said amount may be amended from time to time to reflect revised estimates of said costs of reclamation. WHEREAS, the Operator and the Warrantor, in accordance with the Act, has promised and hereby promises the Board that it will be responsible for all the estimated costs of reclamation with regard to the Affected I ands. WHEREAS, the Board has determined that this Financial Warranty by the Warrantor equals the estimated costs of reclamation, as approved by the Board, with regard to the Affected J ands. NOW, THEREFORE, the Operator and the Warrantor are held hereby firmly unto the State of Colorado in the amount of those sums for those periods of time as set forth herein, until this Financial Warranty is amended or released in accordance with applicable law. The Board may, for good cause shown, increase or decrease the amount and duration of this Financial Warranty. The Operator shall have sixty (60) days after the date of notice of any such adjustment to increase the surety amount, but no such increase shall bind the Warrantor unless and until it shall have consented thereto in writing by the issuance of an additional Financial Warranty or by an endorsement to this Financial Warranty. The Operator and the Warrantor shall notify the Board immediately of any event which may impair this Financial Warranty. If the Board receives such notice, or otherwise has reason to believe that this Financial Warranty has been materially impaired, it may convene a hearing in accordance with the Act for the purpose of determining whether impairment has occurred. The obligation of the Operator and the Warrantor shall continue until the Board has released this Financial Warranty or has ordered it forfeited in accordance with applicable provisions of the Act. It is understood that periods of years may necessarily be required before determination can be matt- that reclamation of the Affected I ands has been satisfactorily completed. It is also recognized that, as reclamation is accomplished, the amount of this Financial Warranty may be reduced with the approval of the Board so that it reflects the then current estimated cost of the remaining reclamation of the Affected J AMC. No revision, extension, or renewal of the permit, or of the time allowed to complete reclamation, shall diminish the Operator's or Warrantor's obligation under this Financial Warranty. No misrepresentation by the Operator which may have induced the Warrantor to execute this Financial Warranty shall be any defense to demand by the State under this agreement. In any single year during the life of the permit, the amount of the Financial Warranty shall not exceed the estimated cosi of fully reclaiming all lands to be affected in said year, plus all lands affected in previous permit years and not yet fully reclaimed. Reclamation costs shall be computed with reference to current reclamation costs. -3 - The amount of this Financial Warranty is based upon estimates as to the cost of reclamation, and does not operate to liquidate, limit, enlarge or restrict the Operator's obligations to complete reclamation and to comply in all respects with the permit and with applicable laws and regulations governing reclamation, even though the actual cost thereof may substantially exceed the amount of this Financial Warranty. The Warrantor shall not be liable under this Financial Warranty for an amount greater than the sum designated herein, unless increased by a later amendment to this Financial Warranty. This Financial Warranty shall be reviewed by the Board from time to time, and the Board may require an increase in the principal sum of this Financial Warranty (and a corresponding increase in the surety amount) to cover increases in the estimated costs of reclamation, but no such increase shall bind the Warrantor unless and until it shall have consented thereto in writing by the issuance of an additional Financial Warranty or by an endorsement to this Financial Warranty. The Warrantor reserves the right to cancel this Financial Warranty, effective only upon an anniversary daze, and only by giving written notice to that effect, mailed by Certified Mail, at least ninety (90) days prior to such anniversary date, addressed to both the Operator at its address herein stated, and to the Board at the address herein stated. In the event of such cancellation, this Financial Warranty shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect as respects, the reclamation of all areas disturbed prior to the effective date of such ranrPilation, unless and until the Operator shall file a substitute Financial Warranty which: (1) assumes liability for all reclamation obligations which shall have arisen at any time while this Financial Warranty is in force; and (2) is accepted in writing by the Board. In the event of such canrellation, if the Financial Warranty is not fully released, the amount of the continuing Financial Warranty available for the reclamation of areas disturbed and unreclaimed at the date of cancellation shall be fixed by the Board at the amount it determines neressary to complete such reclamation (which amount may not exceed the sum designated herein) and the Board shall concurrently identify such areas in writing, and notify the Warrantor and the Operator thereof. Thereafter, the obligation of the Warrantor shall be limited to reclamation of the areas so identified. The consideration for the Warrantor's execution of this agreement is the promise of the Operator to pay the premiums, but failure by the Operator to pay such premiums shall not invalidate or diminish the Warrantor's obligation hereunder. The Board may make demand upon the Warrantor for payment hereunder if the Board determines that reclamation which ought to have been performed by the Operator, or its successors or assigns, remains unperformed, and if Financial Warranty forfeiture procedures required by law have been initiated. No other condition precedent need be fulfilled to entitle the State to receive the amount so demanded. However, if, upon completion of reclamation by the State, the amounts expended for reclamation shall be less than the amount received from the Warrantor, the excess shall be promptly refunded to the Warrantor. If demand is made upon the Warrantor for payment of an amount due to the Board hereunder, and if the Warrantor fails to make payment of such amount within ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of such demand, or if it should thereafter be determined, by agreement of the Warrantor or by final judgment of court, that the amount demanded was properly payable, the Warrantor agrees to pay to the Board, in addition to the amount demanded, interest at the prime rate in effect from time to time at The United Bank of Denver for the period commencing at the end of such ninety -day period and ending on the date of actual payment. -a - If the Board shall notify the Warrantor that the Operator is in default, and if the Board shall initiate any Financial Warranty forfeiture procedures required by law or regulation, the Warrantor may, in lieu of making payment to the Board of the amount due hereunder, cause the reclamation to be timely performed in accordance with all requirements of the Act and all applicable rules and regulations. In such event, when and if the reclamation has been timely performed to the satisfaction of the Board or Division, this Financial Warranty shall be released. If the reclamation shall not be so performed to the satisfaction of the Board or Division, this Financial Warranty shall remain in full force and effect. This Financial Warranty shall be subject to forfeiture whenever the Board determines that any one or more of the following circumstances exist: 1. A Cease and Desist Order entered pursuant to Section 34-32-124 of the Act has been violated, and the corrective action proposed in such Order has not been completed, although ample time to have done so has elapsed; or 2. The Operator is in default under its Performance Warranty, and such default has not been cured, although written notice and ample time to cure such default has been given; or 3. The Operator and/or the Warrantor has failed to maintain its Financial Warranty in good standing as required by the Act; or 4. The Warrantor no longer has the financial ability to carry out its obligations in accordance with the Act. The description of lands herein is for convenience of reference only, and no error in such description, nor any revision of the permitted mining area, nor the disturbance by the Operator of lands outside of the permitted mining area shall alter or diminish the obligations of the Operator and/or Warrantor hereunder, which shall extend to the reclamation of all such lands disturbed. If this Financial Warranty applies to National Forest System lands, and if this Financial Warranty is accepted by the United States Forest Service ("U.S.F.S.") as the bond required under 36 C.F.R. 252.13, then the Operator, having requested that the Board and the U.S.F.S. accept this single Financial Warranty in lieu of the separate bonds which would otherwise be required by applicable law, hereby agrees that, notwithstanding any other provision hereof, or of law, this Financial Warranty shall remain in full force and effect until U S F S has advised the Board by written notice that the Operator's obligations to U.S.F.S., for which this Warranty is executed, have been satisfied, and until the financial warranty has been released by the Board. If this Financial Warranty applies to lands under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Land Commissioners ("Land Board"), and if this Financial Warranty, in whole or in part, is accepted by the Land Board as the bond required under its applicable law and procedures, then the Operator, having requested that the State accept this Financial Warranty in Lieu of the separate bonds which would otherwise be required by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board or Division of Minerals and Geology and by the Land Board, hereby agrees that, notwithstanding any other provision hereof, or of law, this Financial Warranty shall remain in full force and effect until the Board is notified in writing by the Land Board that the Operator's obligations to the Land Board, for which this Warranty is executed, have been satisfied, and until the financial warranty has been released by the Board. -5 - If all or any part of the Affected Lands are tinder the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior (the *BLM"), and if, at the request of the Operator on this Financial Warranty, the BLM has, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 3809.1-9, accepted this Financial Warranty in lieu of requiring a separate reclamation bond payable to the United States, then, notwithstanding any other provision of this Financial Warranty, or of law, the Operator and Warrantor hereby agree that this Financial Warranty shall not be released until the Board is advised in writing by the BLM that the Operator's obligations to the BLM, for which this Warranty is executed, have been satisfied, and until the financial warranty has been released by the Board. This Financial Warranty may be executed in multiple copies, each of which shall be treated as an original, but together they constitute only one agreement, the validity and interpretation of which shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. The provisions hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. SIGNED, SEALED AND DA1ED this 24th day of May The Ame Warrantor 1996 can Insurance Company (SEAL) Western Operator By: D chards, Attorney -in -Fact obile In (SEAL) Frakes, Assistant Secretary NOTARIZATION OF WARRANTOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF Colorado COUNTY OF Denver ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument anent was acknowledrted before me this 24th of May 1996" by S.R. Richards day as Attorney -in -Fact of The American Insurance Company HRH/TALBERT • (Forvem The Taal Cir) P.O. Box 9364, Denver, CO 80209-0364 Phone: 303-722-7776 FAX 303-7224862 stmt' Bows an twma NOTARY PUBLIC Cynthia M y M. Burnett My Commission expires: 12/3/98 -6 - NOTARIZATION OF OPERATOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF Colorado COUNTY OF Denver )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th of May 1996 by Dan W. Frakes day Assistant Secretary of Western Mobile Inc. APPROVED: State of Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Mined Land Reclamation Board My Commission expires: 5-20-98 By: Date: Division Director REVISED 10/2/95 M:\OSS\am\6181F.amm GENERAL POW CR OF ATTORNEY .aE AMERICAN INSURANCE COM: . KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey on February 20, 1846, and redomesticated to the State of Nebraska on June 1, 1990, and having its principal office in the County of Marin, State of California, has made, constituted and appointed, and does by these presents make, constitute and appoint CELESTE MOO RE , COURTNEY T. S. ROSULEK, J. R. RICHARDS, WILLIAM K. PETERSON, LEON B. DARTOIS, JAMES BARBOUR, jointly or severally DENVER! CO its true and law cal Attomey(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority hereby conferred in its name, place and stead, to execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver any and all bonds, undertaking, recognisances or other written obligations in the nature thereof and to bind the Corporation thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds were signed by the President. sealed with the corporate seal of the Corporation and duly attested by its Secretary, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said Attorney(s)-in-Fact may do in the premises. This power of attorney is granted pursuant to Article VII, Sections 45 and 46 of By-laws of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY now in full force and effect. "Article Yll. Appointment andAatbority of Resident Secretaries, Attorneys-ln-Fact and Agents to accept Legal Pruett and Make Appearances. Section 45. Appointment. The Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President, any Vice -President or any other person authorized by the Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President or any Vice -President may, from time to time, appoint Resident Assistant Secretaries and Attorneys -in -Fact to represent and act for and on behalf of the Corporation and Agents 10 accept legal process and make appearances for and on behalf of the Corporation. Section 46. Authority. The authority of such Resident Assistant Secretaries, Attorneys -fn -Fact and Agents shall be as prescribed In the instrument evidencing their appointment. Any such appointment and all authority granted thereby may be revoked at any time by the Board of Directors or by any pets*" empowered to make such appointment." This power of attorney is signed and sealed under and by the authorityof the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting, duly called and held on the 3Ist day of July, 1984, and said Resolution has not been amended or repealed: "RESOLVED, that the signature of any Vice -President, Assistant Secretary, and Resident Assistant Secretary of this Corporation, and the seal of this Corporation may be affixed or printed on any power of attorney, on any revocation of any power of attorney, or on any certificate relating thereto, by facsimile, and any power of attorney, any revocation of any power of attorney, or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Corporation:' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Vice -President, and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this loth day of January 19 96 THF AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY By STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN via-Praid.n, On this 1Oth day of 1nnar19 96 before me personally came M. A. Mallonee » to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, didydepose and say: that he is Via -President of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, the Corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that be knows the seal of said Corporation; that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seat; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said Corporation and that he signed his name thereto by like order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year herein fust above written. r 0 a _ v A. KRIEGER ^ D COMM.a1045112 NOTARY RUitIC-CAtttORNIA D MARIN COUNTY M,Cann Expire Mw. 20,1999 'i % v -4 v v v STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN CERTIFICATE 1, the undersigned, Resident Assistant Secretary of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a NEBRASKA Corporation. 1)0 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains it, full force and has not been revoked; and furthermore that Articic VII, Sections 45 and 46 of the By-laws of the Corporation, and the Resolution of the Board of Director; set forth in the Power of Attorney, are now in force. Signed and sealed at the County of Marin. Dated the 360711 -TA -3-D5 24th day of �19 96 / A yr�v C. addml A.:R.a s.vn.rr COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT PHONE: (303) 866-3567 The Division of Minerals and Geology has conducted an inspection of the mining operation noted below. This report documents observations concerning compliance of the mining operation with the permit and the regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The report notes: 1) Areas of successful compliance; 2) Problems and suggested corrective actions; 3) Possible violations to be considered for possible enforcement action by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. OPERATORS SHOULD READ THIS REPORT CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT MAY REQUIRE. CORRECTIVE ACTION AND/OR RESPONSE$ TO THE DIVISION IN ORDER TO. AVOID CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD. MINE NAME: e, COUNTY: MINERAL INSPECTOR (S). OPERATOR : (,r% Lam,,. }'VI ; -e /15 -alt, .,.t„ ,4r c tANAK:_cfu:rt MINE ID M OR PROSPECTING ID *:'4 7 — ac]µ INSPECTION DATE INSPECTOR'S INITIALS INSPECTION TYPE CODE" JOINT INSP. AGENCY CODE° 9H13 ----P7 WEATHER CODE) Ct OP. REP. PRESE TYPOF OPERATION: 1ip- C - DATE OF COMPLAINT TIME OF DAY (MILITARY) POST INSP. CONTACTS° REASON FOR INSP. CODEnt 5"dt e h t ftke r ✓4 1/230 X/ D 1) INSPECTION TYPE CODE - (CL -IN: [Lc Illegal Operation, MI = Monitoring, MP= Mineral Prospect. SI=Sunry-plated, PR=I1vy,., etionl 2) POST INSPECTION CONTACTS AND JOINT INSPECTION AGENCY CODE - ICL -AG: NO= None. 81= Blld, CH= Colo. Dept. Health; CL= I -and Board. CT= CW CW=Wildlife, FS=Forest Service, HW=Hwy. Dept., LG= Local Government, SE=State Engr.I 3) REASON FOR INSPECTION CODE - ICL -R5: AG =Other Agency Request, CT=Citizen Complaint, LE=Noma] Ida Program. HP= High Priority. PY= Priority] 4) WEATHER CODE- [CL -WE: CL—Cloudy, CR=Clear, IN=Inclement - prevented inspection, RN=Raining, SN=Snowing, WD=Windy] This list identifies the environmental and permit parameters inspected and gives a categorical evaluation of each. IF PB OR PV IS INDICATED. IOU SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING PAGES CAREFULLY IN ORDER TO MSS/RE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF YOUR PERMIT AND APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS. If PV is indicated, you will be notified under separate cover when the Mined Land reclamation Board will consider possible enforcement action. (AR)RECORDS (HB)HYDROIOGIC BALANCE . . (PW)PROCESSING WASTE/TAILINGS (MP)GENL MINE PLAN COMPLIANCE (SM)SIGNS AND MARKERS . . . . (ES)OVERBURDEN/DEV. WASTE . . (AT)ACID OR TOXIC MATERIALS . Y = Inspected and Found in Compliance WHITE - PUBLIC FILE GENERAL INSPECTION TOPICS N = IFNIFINANCIAL WARRANTY (BG)BACKFILL & GRADING . (SF)PROCESSING FACILITIES (FW)FISH & WILDLIFE . . . (SP)STORM WATER MGT PLAN (SC)EROSION/SEDIMENTATION (OD)OFF-SITE DAMAGE . . . 1 (RD)ROADS . (EX)EXPLOSIVES . (TSITOPSOIL (RV) REVEGETATION (SB)COMPLETE INSP (R5)RECL PLAN/COMP (ST) STIPULATIONS PV = Inspected and Possible Violations Noted PB = Inspected and Problems Noted Not Inspected NA = Not Applicable YELLOW - OPERATOR PINK - CORRESPONDENCE FILE r. MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # /V / lc - INSPECTION - INSPECTION DATE 9-‘-)-S- (Page 2) 5' OBSERVATIONS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS I & E C•ntact Address NAME tizoe_/�.u� OPERATOR �� n STREET I.59© Int /4,3 nvQ- /1112:41- CITY/STATE/ZIP cc: 0 CE ❑ BL ❑ FS ❑ HW O HMWMD (CH) O SE ❑ WQCD (CH) O OTHER Western MMobile Aggregate • Asphalt- Concrete September 11, 1997 Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Minerals and Geology ""' ' f) c 1313 Sherman Street, Room 213 Denver, CO 80203 RE: Request for Release of Performance and Financial Warranties Jammaron Pit, Permit No. M-75-004 Corporate - Central Services 1590 W 12th Ave. Oenv&r, Colorado 80204 303. 657. 4334 Fax 303. 657. 4339 .5L -coo To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to the Construction Material Rules and Regulations, Rule 4.16, Release of Performance and Financial Warranties, Western Mobile Northern, Inc. formally requests that the Division of Minerals and Geology consider the following: Reclamation on the property is complete and in accordance with the reclamation plan. This site was seeded in 1993. The small stockpiles that remain on site, are being left at the request of the property owner. Please see the attached letter. Photos are enclosed to show the vegetation growth on site. Please find enclosed a copy of the proof of notice to the land owner, Joe Jammaron, and Garfield County. Should you have any additional questions regarding this request, please feel free to contact me at (303) 657-4331. Sincerely, Julie Goettemoeller Senior Land Manager Enclosures cc: K.R. Weatherly, Northern Manager Garfield County Assessors Joe Jammaron, Owner A.F. : i\kslei .\2,-.J a n\/‘ Certified Mail P 611 872 808 A Redland Group company Rodlarid STATE Of COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3567 FAX: 4303) 832-8106 October 17, 1997 Ms. Julie Goettemoeller Western Mobile Northern Inc. 1590 W. 12th Avenue Denver, CO 80204 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor lames S. Lochhead Executive Director Michael 8. Long Division Director RE: Jammaron Pit, Financial and Performance Warranty Release, Permit No. M-75-004, Revision No. SL -2 Dear Ms. Goettemoeller: I am pleased to inform you that on October 2, 1997 the Division of Minerals and Geology released Western Mobile Northern Inc. from further responsibility for the Jammaron Pit. Enclosed is your Financial Warranty, Corporate Surety Bond No. 11133252721 in the amount of $115,158.00, issued by the American Insurance Company, and the Performance Warranty you originally provided. These are released in their entirety. You should advise the issuer of your bond of this release by copy of this letter. Sincerely, Gregg R.. Squire Environmental Protection Sp CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P 21 Return Receipt Requested 8 Enclosures cc: Barbara D. Chiappone, M:\OSS\PMMITEMP\MEW 1101)a.GRS iCNomplete a 1 and/or 21or adddlural services. • p ntt your tname rod mese on the reverse of this form :Zing ye W to the hone of the maniac% or on the O e Attach It form mail nc beim P ritO i Requested' on ankle foes dr ethe Re eoeRana Receipt ahmv to whom eThe Retum ReoeiDt delivered. 3. Article Addressed to:01-f'^Ogller 00b;t2 No01w\ ta1+u, co pgCe 5. 0 7,51 1,46 or Certified Mat ,Go coverage Prov l for international Mail see 3 v+A o Code 1s� tcNorAvtacn amber �¢n�•r 1a, a ZIPpa6G Co_ Q Dec IN IN IN NE u NE IN IN IN uuN 41 I_UU— — _Ip 11 11 11 1111 Id ■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN IA • • • IN IN IA • • NE IN • '111 Intl 1I U414 U U ORM IP It U • U IP t 11 IN ■ ■ l � ■ d id id IA IN IN IA • IN u IN M ■ ids ■ ■ d 11 id i■ II i■ Id= M ME 11M1 d IP IIIA11MNEIA NE NE 4 4■ U ii ■ 1111 im i__ ■ ill ■ i_ ■ 11 ■ 11 11 '1 11 d ■ ■ ■ ■ IN i■ ■ - lin i1 ■ i— lin ■N NMI - 11 IIM ■ • • IN IN IN u IN IP IP IP d i_ ■ imi ■ ■ ii '1 'd 'd IN 11 IN IA ml•• u IN IN IA IN NE ■ il IN 11 11 NE 11 ■ ■ ▪ IP SIMI 11 ■ ■ ■ 11 it _ A 11 IN • • MUM IAu u 11 11 • • IN • 4 4 4 4 4 4 di i■ 11M 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ 11 • MI NE 11E11 IA 11 1 • MI MI 111 IN ui= 1 in Mi iin 11 11 id ■ IN IN ■ imi ■ ■ 11 IP IP 4 4 IN 4 4 11 11 IIIIM ■ IN 4 IN IN 4 4 IN 4 4 IN II IM 11 Iii 11 '1 111 111 ■ ■ id IA 4 ml IP IIA 111 IN IIA 4 4 4 IN • ■ 11 imi m i■ im ■ 11 ■ no ■ IN IX IN IN 4 4 4 NE I_ IA IP IN 4 4 IN IN I•p '1 • ud mi um - lim 'mi i■ i■ imi ti ■ ■ i■ IP IN IA NE NE IN IAIr NE IP 4 NI IP 4 IP IN IN i■ _ ■ aim doom id id id ■ ■ 1 id a ■ A ■ imi ■ A IN 4 IN IN 4 111 MI ■ 11 i■ 11 III ON i■ A A ■ ■ ii san imi I__ ■ Ali — • ■ ■ 11 ■ 11 11 d "0 ■ P1 ■ — lin = I■ - 11 ■ 11 lin IN 4 IN 4 4 a IP 4 IA ml IP 4 IP 11 4 IP 4 NI m 11 11 11 id 4 111 4 4 IN NE 11 I■ ii �1 di di 4 IN IN IN IA NE — IA 11 4 4 i■ 11 a 4 IN 4 4 IP IP IN 4 4 IN IA ION IN IN IN IN IN 4 ' i■ ■■ ■ imi■■ imi mim ft ii Imo i■ ■ IP 4 4 OM IN IP IP IP ■ ■ A ■ it ■ ■ ■ IiMi ■ IN IA 4 IN IN MI IN IN IN ■ IN I 1■ m id id ■OMB IMMI11111:: 411 ■ r■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IA 4 4 11 11 ■ A A ■ ■ ■ ■ d lb r'—■ ■ 4 II IN 4 4 IA IN IN LIM Il SII ■ ■ ▪ - 11 11 I. ■ ■ T■ • .m& allie ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • 11 ■ IP N 1' IN IN IIIA II IP . 11 N N N IN IP IP N IP IP IP IP N IIN N IP IN N N N Um N N IN IP IP ■ ■ �p �■ �■ �� �■ IP N ■ ■ ■ �■ ■ • • • ■ ■ 11 - - irm ■■ m■■_ IP IP IP N ■ ■ 11 11 ■ IP • IP N N • NE • IP IP IA ■ ■ 11 ■ ■ • • ■ 11 • ■ 11 ■ ■ ■ 11 ■ �� �■ ■d 11 ■ 11 ■ ■ 111 111 111 111 0001 11 ■ - ■ ■ ■ Mk 1111 • 11 IN IN IP • I_ INU''i • NE • '1IN • N INS 111 Ile IP 111 IP NI IAII 'NP IP NUN • u N IN NN u NM IN IN IN N 11 INN NE I, • Ii - O N N N 111 Ir • NE IA N IA 1 IP N1 N NI ■ it 11 ■ • 11M ■ • IP _ Imo IP IP IP - 4 IP IP IN IN NA • IIU • IP IIIM1 IP • • 11 NA IP • IP a 111 111 m d 111 11 NI • • IP IP • IIII 4 • 111 ■• • IN • • IN • IN IN IP • IP IA • 11 1 IP IP IA ■ I — t 1 • • IA • IP • ▪ 111 id ilmde IP — • IN IN — Ii IP IP MI NE NU IP NE • IP • ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT P.O. Box 1002 * GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Tel (970) 945-2144 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2008 Call to Order Call to Order — M/S/C Rick called meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. Rock second, all in favor. Roll Call Board Members Present Wes Powell, President Nate Kaegebein, Vice President Rock Leonard, Secretary Rick Broadhurst, Board Member Staff Present Larry Green, District Attorney Scott Grosscup, District Attorney Alan Leslie, Plant Operator Chris Lehrman, District Engineer Joey Fetzko, District Administrator Scott Leslie, Plant Operator M/S/C Rick made a motion to excuse Brad Geddes. Rock second, all in favor. Also Present Rick Orrison, Warehouse Investment Partnership John Patrick, Meritage Development Group Scott Russell, Meritage Development Group Matt Lamb, Meritage Development Group Administrator's Report October Minutes M/S/C Nate made a motion to approve October 28, 2008 minutes. Rock second, all in favor. Accounts Payable M/S/C Rock made a motion to approve payables as presented. Nate second, all in favor. Operator's Report HVAC System Alan discussed the issues they are having with the HVAC system. They are looking at redesigning it during the plant expansion. In the meantime, something needs to be done so they are coming up with a short-term solution. Alan will update the Board next month. Engineer's Report WWTF Expansion The design of the expansion is going forward as anticipated. We are getting ready to submit the Process Design Report (PDR) to CDPHE. Once the PDR is approved we are 2 — 3 months from going to construction depending on the final permitting. We are still on schedule to go to bid in the spring time. WWTF Bar Screen Originally, the automatic bar screen we were looking at was around $120,000. The new model that came out is $89,000. EPC and SGM have inspected both automatic bar screens and have decided that the new model will meet the plant's needs. We have initiated the process to have the bar screen constructed and delivered. We should have the bar screen installed by the beginning of the year. November 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING Petition for Inclusion M/S/C Rick made a motion to open public hearing at 3:35 pm. Nate second, all in favor. Notification of the public hearing was published in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. Notice was also sent to the City of Glenwood Springs. John Patrick, Scott Russell and Matt Lamb were present from Meritage Development Group. Rick Orrison was present representing Warehouse Investment Partnership. No other members of the public were present and the District did not receive any written comments on the petition for inclusion. The District received Petitions for Inclusion from two properties. A property referred to as the Jamaron property which is 110 acres and currently owned by Eastbank, LLC, Elizabeth MacGregor Irrevocable Trust and Flora MacGregor Irrevocable Trust. Meritage Development Group is currently under contract to purchase this property. The other property is 5 acres where Orrison Distributing is located. This is owned by Warehouse Investment Partnership. Meritage Development Group is looking at developing the property to include about 300 EQR's. They have gone to the City of Glenwood Springs and have been told that they would not be able to tie into the city for sewer for several years and that potable water service is not an option. Some of the technical issues and requirements for inclusion of the two properties were discussed. These are issues that Chris can work with them on. The Board also wants to make sure there would be no risk or increased cost to existing customers. The Board would like for Staff to come up with a list of proposed conditions. M/S/C Rick made a motion to accept the inclusion of the discussed properties conditioned upon the District and the applicants entering into an acceptable pre -inclusion agreement, and that prior to negotiating such an agreement, the Applicants are to submit to the District a signed cost reimbursement agreement along with a $15,000 deposit. Nate second, all in favor. M/S/C Rick made a motion to continue the hearing to the January meeting for purposes of considering the status of the pre -inclusion agreement. Rock second, all in favor. Other Items Next Meeting 3 pm, Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Adjournment 4:50pm. M/S/C Motion to adjourn meeting by Rick. Nate second, all in favor. Read and approved this 16th day of December, 2008. Signed: Attest: SEAL November 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 2 IN 4 IN 11 ■ IN ■ ■ - ■ ■ = I■ I■ ■ - 11 111 11 11 II iiMi 11 II i■ IN IA IN IN 4 ■ 11 ■ ■ I_ - i■ ■ 11 11 011 0 IN '01 a 111 ■ ■ d IN MI i ill ■ 4 4 ■ ■ ■1 ■ d IN AUDREY ELLIS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i1 II ■ d 4 IN IN IN IN IN u IN IiMi i■ ■ 4 d IN ■ IN 111 4 4 IAl1 IP 11 A 11 11 I■ ■ li I1MI■ 11 11 ■ 11 111 ■ Mir MI i IN IA IN IN �� i IN — Imo U Imo IP U ■ I■ 11 ■ li ■ li I1M 11 11 aim 11momI1 I1 I1 IN 11.1 161116 IN IV 11 V IP Um u NE IA IP IP 4 Imo 11 ■ 'iii i I■ ■ 11 mi ■ ■ mi ■ li mi i li li li 11 11 a 11 IPWI EN Ilm IN IP IP 11 Iu 4 i mi mom dIP IP iIPIPIA i 11 Ilm 11 I1 - Mk ��i 11 I1 i • 11 Id • Imo IIII IP Um i — MUM • IA • IA I_ IP IP IA i I■ I■ I■ ■ ri 111 IP IP IP 11 1111111 + �+ �+ I IN IN IN IA IP IP 4 Imo 11 11 IlIlIl11111111111111111111Illi 11 ■ ■ ■ Mk N 11 11 t 1 • reIN A IF I� li • IP IP Imo Imo IA lel ml 4 _ IN i I- • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ • • L ■. 7 11 • ■ ■ • • a 1 la • • / r - a -- � ««� 7 �\. � . —:f § / - I %^ \ / 1 1 11 r # 0. f a.% or -r. Ii141 1. go- .....", A N. 006 Illimbma IOft. I% 1 eft *.**, .1" • 1 11 • .A_■ • 14-1 ' lrY.ree_.e • • 4 # tow **raw air a.imuiaie rota p.m= II \ ilMEMPL 701-`; 0- • Airi EENIFINEE Il EIERUMAIII l manniallill E ,,tillIMMINW 1pf 1 non maiwisrif v.7 I mu • SENEENITA E P"IEELli EN ERNE NE s !!UP 11 EEME UM ME ' El. ENE I IEEE -ht. ERN .i?iat ip IEEE ' SEt. E MI SEr A how A 4. 44 1114.i'M 11. is .11,ArMiLammogioni 1...44410.14% mow • • • • • • • • • 11 • • • o • • • • ti iir aft 1 IN ■ N NE IN IN IN I I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 11 1 ■ • ■ IN 4 IN IN 1 rWH CTLITHOMPSON 1 N C O R P O R A T 1 O January 28, 2009 Meritage Development Group P.O. Box 469 Basalt, CO 81621 Attention: Mr. Matt Lamm Subject: Geologic Hazard Evaluation Eastbank Development Garfield County, Colorado Project No. GS05326-105 This report presents the results of our geologic hazard evaluation for the planned Eastbank Development property in Garfield County, Colorado. The purpose of the evaluation was to indentify the site geology and potential geologic hazards and constraints which could affect proposed site development and should be understood and considered during planning. This report was prepared from field reconnaissance observations and experience with similar geologic settings and developments in the area. This report includes descriptions and interpretations of geologic conditions based on our field reconnaissance, and review of published literature, maps, satellite images, and aerial photographs. Project Location and Site Conditions The property is situated between State Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River approximately 3 miles northwest of Carbondale, Colorado. The river is to the south and west of the property, State Highway 82 is east of the site. North of the site is a distributing business and farmland. Figure 1 shows the approximate site location. The property consists of several topographic benches (terraces) that step down from the east (State Highway 82) to the west (Roaring Fork River). The terraces are separated by natural and man-made slopes that are generally 20 to 40 feet high and slope at between 2 and 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Steeper slopes rise from the lowest bend adjacent to the river. Site topography has been influenced by prior gravel pit reclamation. The upper terrace ground surface slopes at between 1 and 3 percent down towards the west terrace with elevations between 5915 and 5905 feet. The middle terrace is the largest area. Elevations on this terrace range from about 234 Center Drive !Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411 5840 to 5895 feet and ground surfaces mostly slope to the west at between 2 and 5 percent. Steeper slopes related to past gravel mining occur on this terrace. The lowest terrace is adjacent to the river and is bisected by a 10 to 20 foot river cut bank. This terrace is from elevation 5845 feet to the river bank. Small wood -frame buildings and barns are on parts of the lower and middle terraces. Proposed Development We reviewed conceptual plans dated January 13, 2009 to prepare this report. Parcels on the west and south areas of the property adjacent to the river are shown as single-family estate lots and as single-family mixed residential. Between these residential parcels and State Highway 82 are areas for athletic fields, a school, and neighborhood commercial development. Figure 2 shows the conceptual plans that were provided. Site Geology In preparation of this report we reviewed U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) and Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) mapping and publications, made field observations and viewed stereographic aerial photographs and satellite imagery to evaluate bedrock and surficial geology and determine potential geologic hazards on the site. The bedrock underlying the site is mapped as the Middle Pennsylvanian (approximately 320 million years before present) Eagle Valley Evaporite (Figure 3). This formation is comprised of massive to laminated gypsum, anhydrite, halite, mudstone, sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and black shale. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is thought to range in thickness from 1,200 to 9,000 feet and is commonly intensely folded and faulted. In our experience in this area of the Roaring Fork River valley, the Eagle Valley Evaporite is commonly encountered at depths ranging from 50 to 80 feet below the ground surface. Geologically, the site is located in the Carbondale Collapse Center, a region of subsidence or collapse resulting from evaporite flowage and dissolution. As much as 3,900 vertical feet of collapse is thought to have occurred in the area. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to dissolution resulting in the formation of karst. Karst is a term used to describe a type of topography that is formed over solution prone bedrock and is characterized by sinkholes, caverns, voids, and underground drainages. In this area, sinkhole formation in overburden soils overlying the solution prone Eagle Valley Evaporite is not uncommon. Sinkhole formation is further discussed in the Geologic Hazard section of this report. Surficial soils overlying the Eagle Valley Evaporite are mostly composed of Quaternary (recent to 1.8 million years before present) aged alluvial deposits (Figure 4). Alluvial deposits or alluvium are materials that were deposited by water in streams and rivers. The alluvium at this site varies from recent river deposits associated with the Roaring Fork River to alluvial terrace deposits of varying ages. The younger alluvium is typically found on the lower terrace and has been exposed by historic gravel mining operations on parts of the middle benches. Typically, the alluvium MERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP EASTBANK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. GS05326-105 5:16505326.000110513. LettersIG505326105 L1.Eoc 2 ranges in size from fine-grained sand to cobble and is poorly sorted. The older alluvial deposits are in the area of the higher terraces and are interpreted as glacial outwash from earlier glacial and interglacial periods. The older alluvium is generally poorly sorted and comprised of materials range in size from clay to boulder. In general, the alluvial gravel and cobble sized material are well rounded. Debris fan and/or colluvial (hillside gravity derived) deposits are common overburden materials in the area of the upper terraces and along steep hillsides. They often overlie or are interbedded with the alluvial deposits. Because of the mechanism of deposition, these clay to boulder size materials are often poorly sorted, unconsolidated materials with large void ratios and grain to grain bonds that are weakened when wetter under a load. This can result in significant volume reduction or hydrocompaction. These materials are commonly referred to as collapsible soils and are further discussed in the Geologic Hazard section of this report. Seismicity This area, like most of central Colorado, is subject to a low degree of seismic risk. No indications of recent movements of any of the faults in the area have been reported in the available geologic literature. As in most areas of recognized low seismicity, the record of the past earthquake activity in Colorado is somewhat incomplete. According to the 2006 International Building Code and based on our experience in the area, we anticipate the seismic criteria for Site Class C will be applicable to this site. Only minor damage to relatively new, properly designed and built buildings would be expected. Wind and snow loads, not seismic considerations, typically govern dynamic structural design in this area. Values for predicted peak ground accelerations associated with the seismic site class can be provided after the subsurface conditions have been identified with a subsurface investigation. Geologic Hazards Based on our field reconnaissance and review of geologic maps and publications, satellite images and aerial photographs we believe that sinkhole formation and collapsible soils are potential geologic hazards that exist at the site, sinkhole formation being the more significant hazard. These geologic hazards are discussed in detail in the following sections. A 100-yearfloodplain map produced by the National Flood Insurance Program is presented in Figure 5. Fill not appropriate for support of structures related to mine reclamation may have been placed. The presence and condition of fill will need to be evaluated during field investigations. Sinkhole Formation This site is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite and is prone to subsidence and sinkhole formation. Sinkhole formation in the surficial soils that overlie the Eagle MERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP EASTBANK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. GS05326-105 S:1GS05326.000110513. Letlers1G805326105 L1.Coc 3 Valley Evaporite are not uncommon in the Roaring Fork Valley between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. Most of the known sinkholes have occurred on flat -lying river terraces. Where surficial soil overlies the Eagle Valley Evaporite there is some potential that subsidence will occur in the future. Three basic types of sinkholes are known to occur in the area including: 1. Spontaneous roof collapse and rubble filling of existing near -surface dissolution cavity. 2. Surface collapse by downward movement of river terrace gravel into deep bedrock voids. 3. Surface collapse by piping of fine-grained soil deposits through fissures or small pipes into voids in the underlying bedrock. Spontaneous roof collapse into near surface dissolution cavities and surface collapse of river gravels into bedrock voids are rare events but have been reported in the area. More commonly, subsidence in the vicinity is related to the removal of fines via piping. Mapping in the area by the CGS indicates numerous features interpreted as sinkholes are present. Specifically, two features at the site have been interpreted as sinkholes (Figure 3). Unfortunately, it is very difficult to predict the locations of future sinkhole formation. Identifying existing features that may be sinkholes is comparatively easy. Significant damage to buildings, roadways, bridges, culverts and other improvements that are founded over sinkholes or areas of subsidence can occur. Collapsible Soils Based on our experience and published mapping of the area, it is probable that collapsible soils are present on portions of the site. Typically these materials are found on the upper terraces and adjacent to steep slopes. Large settlements can occur in these materials causing significant distress to buildings, roadways, bridges, culverts and other improvements supported by these materials. We believe that comparatively thin layers (5 to 10 feet thick) may exist at this site. We anticipate that collapsible soils are most likely to be encountered on the upper terrace above elevation 5905 feet. Geologic Hazard Mitigation Generally, it is good practice to avoid development in areas of with potential for sinkhole formation, subsidence and/or collapsible soils; however, we understand this is not always possible. Many buildings and other improvements have been founded on the natural overburden soils in the area within a similar geologic setting and have performed well. For this site, we judge that the risk of damage from sinkhole formation or subsidence is moderate and the risk from collapsible soils is low. However, when developing the site the owner must consider that there is still some risk of damage to structures and other improvements from sinkhole formation, subsidence, and collapsible soils. To reduce this risk, the owner could consider foundation systems for structures that include post -tensioned slabs or reinforced concrete -mat foundations. In the event of sinkhole formation or subsidence, these MERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP EASTBANK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. GS05326-105 5:\G505326.000110513. Letters1G505326 105 L1.doc 4 types of foundation systems may allow mitigation prior to extensive structural damage. A design level geotechnical investigation including borings, test pits and/or trenches is strongly recommended to better evaluate the presence of geologic hazards and to evaluate risks and potential mitigation that may be required. In addition, a geophysical investigation to identify subsurface voids and other features is strongly recommended. Once existing sinkholes, subsidence features and/or collapsible soils are identified, they can be avoided and/or mitigated. Limitations This report was prepared from data developed during our field reconnaissance, document review and experience with similar conditions. If plans change or differ from the assumptions presented herein, we should be contacted to review our recommendations. We believe this evaluation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report, please contact the undersigned. CTL 1 THOMPSON, INC. by: Reviewed by: John Mechling, P.E. Robin Dornfest, PG Branch Manager Senior Engineering Geologist JM:RD:cd (5 copies sent) MERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP EASTBANK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. G805326-105 S:\GS05326.000110513. Letters1G505326105 L1.doc Scale: 1"=8,000' Note: Map printed from Topo!, © 2000, Wildflower Productions (www.topo.com). Meritage Development Corporation Eastbank Development Project No. GS05326-105 Ip Fig. 1 GS05326J2 01/26/09 ERW i i SCALE: '1'= 400' Merltage Development Corporation Eaetbenk Development Project No. GS05326-105 Conceptual Plan FIg. 2 GS05326_F3 01/28/09 CD Scale: 1"=300' LEGEND: ® Potential sink hole location, identified from CGS compilation of historic sinkhole locations. Eagle Valley Evaporite (Middle Pennsylvanian) Meritage Development Group Eastbank Development Project No. GS05326-105 B �a k and h 0.01 p Fig. 3 GS05326_F4 01/28/09 CD Scale: 1"=300' <'1�1111111111111111 �_ __ ,. LEGEND: Reclaimed gravel pit. Qy — Quaternary Alluvium Qo — Quaternary Older Alluvium Qy Meritage Development Group Eastbank Development Project No. GS05326-105 Fig. 4 SCALE: 1'=1,000' 100 -year Floodplain Meritage Development Corporation Data Eastbenk Development Fig. 5 Project No. GS05326-105 27 fI ZONE 1 '. 'Jr838 j I' ZONEA4i 5847 I\ 26 } Zzi APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 .__ _,..._.r_T.. { ROARING FORT.' ZONE 8 ; _`---'�'--�-__ II RIVER�4$ u842 ZONE C R tai 6$584 lAch Approximate Site +' `° �'� r 5852 Location co so t/ZONE AZ ',, ZONES 5962 . Cr 59227 <0) `.y\:\�,� '1 �, � JI ZONE C ,. 1 j� i 1A,j RM44� 1 854 r,! & e NATIONAL TLOOO INSURANCE PROGRAM nII1WW,', FIRM FLOOD INSARANCE RATE MAP GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) PANEL 7465 OF 1900 {AEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT P RINT£DI COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 0882851465 8 MAP REVISED: o ,-4,-.T. JANUARY 3,1988 Fedeme nane m9 Ec Mmeet en 3' Ee AS 0'5' Fourmile Creek 5880-4., ZONE B 5860.----"r 34 � `� \ 5 \ `,roti \,, 1154 ,,,,, 65 r 58 s ? ZONES 5 86g �— „ cot°' co KPto �\ 5873 ZONE A4 \'',c,--, / �. T. S. 'ga was extracted as ate al copy M a pomon . Tnie eba p dons n t r goct men. s Tms map dims en reflect tht changes or aedmn using h^msy have eche dateIon the ore block. Po which may oduc been made s ubou Natrona( title ram the latest product PENArn about Score of owory sc.fem nce a,g Program Mood maps aleck the PEC.rA Flood Map Slom 51 \MMk. m3c.fCm a.goy� T T C � 100 -year Floodplain Meritage Development Corporation Data Eastbenk Development Fig. 5 Project No. GS05326-105 USDA United States Department of Agriculture c Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Eastbank Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/ state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 7 Soil Map (Eastbank) 8 Legend 9 Map Unit Legend (Eastbank) 10 Map Unit Descriptions (Eastbank) 10 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 12 8—Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 12 11—Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 13 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 14 73—Water 14 Soil Information for All Uses 15 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use 15 Building Site Development 15 Corrosion of Concrete (Eastbank) 15 Corrosion of Steel (Eastbank) 18 Soil Properties and Qualities 22 Water Features 22 Depth to Water Table (Eastbank) 22 Ecological Site Assessment 27 All Ecological Sites — Rangeland (Eastbank) 27 Map—Dominant Ecological Site (Eastbank) 28 Legend—Dominant Ecological Site (Eastbank) 29 Table—Ecological Sites by Map Unit Component (Eastbank) 30 Soil Reports 31 Building Site Development 31 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Eastbank) 31 Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Eastbank) 33 References 36 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil - landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot $ Wet Spot A. Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features 0 Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails e0400 Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads stir Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:6,770 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/6/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend (Eastbank) Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C0683) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 8 Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 90.0 79.0% 11 Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 2.9 2.5% 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 12.4 10.9% 73 Water 8.6 7.5% Totals for Area of Interest 113.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions (Eastbank) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that 10 Custom Soil Resource Report have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha - Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 8—Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Map Unit Composition Azeltine and similar soils: 45 percent Atencio and similar soils: 45 percent Description of Atencio Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298C0) Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Sandy loam 11 to 23 inches: Gravelly sandy clay loam 23 to 28 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 28 to 60 inches: Extremely cobbly sand Description of Azeltine Setting Landform: Terraces, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across -slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298C0) Typical profile 0 to 18 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 18 to 60 inches: Extremely gravelly sand 11—Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Map Unit Composition Begay and similar soils: 90 percent Description of Begay Setting Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across -slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298C0) Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile 0 to 10 inches: Sandy loam 10 to 60 inches: Stony sandy loam 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Map Unit Composition Ildefonso and similar soils: 90 percent Description of Ildefonso Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, valley sides, breaks Down-slope shape: Linear, convex Across -slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Mixed alluvium derived from basalt Properties and qualities Slope: 25 to 45 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 35 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Stony loam 8 to 60 inches: Very stony loam 73—Water Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Building Site Development Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Corrosion of Concrete (Eastbank) "Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil -induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. The risk of corrosion is expressed as 'low," "moderate," or "high." 15 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Map Scale: 1:6,770 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Soil Ratings 0 High n Moderate n Low Not rated or not available Political Features Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails /w,r Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/6/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Corrosion of Concrete (Eastbank) Corrosion of Concrete— Summary by Map Unit — Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 8 Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Low 90.0 79.0% 11 Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Low Low 2.9 12.4 2.5% 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 10.9% 73 Water 8.6 7.5% Totals for Area of Interest 113.9 100.0% Rating Options—Corrosion of Concrete (Eastbank) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Corrosion of Steel (Eastbank) "Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil -induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle -size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high." 18 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Map Scale: 1:6,770 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Soil Ratings 0 High n Moderate n Low Not rated or not available Political Features Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails /w,r Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/6/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Corrosion of Steel (Eastbank) Corrosion of Steel— Summary by Map Unit — Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 8 Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Moderate 90.0 79.0% 11 Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Moderate 2.9 12.4 2.5% 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Moderate 10.9% 73 Water 8.6 7.5% Totals for Area of Interest 113.9 100.0% Rating Options—Corrosion of Steel (Eastbank) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Water Features Water Features include ponding frequency, flooding frequency, and depth to water table. Depth to Water Table (Eastbank) "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. 22 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Map Scale: 1:6,770 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units 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 Soil Ratings measurements. 0 0-25 0 25 - 50 Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov 0 50 - 100 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NAD83 0 100 - 150 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of 150 - 200 the version date(s) listed below. 0 > 200 Political Features p Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails /w,r Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads ALAI Local Roads Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/6/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Depth to Water Table (Eastbank) Depth to Water Table— Summary by Map Unit — Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (centimeters) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 8 Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes >200 90.0 79.0% 11 Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes >200 2.9 12.4 2.5% 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes >200 10.9% 73 Water >200 8.6 113.9 7.5% Totals for Area of Interest 100.0% 25 Custom Soil Resource Report Rating Options—Depth to Water Table (Eastbank) Units of Measure: centimeters Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Beginning Month: January Ending Month: December Custom Soil Resource Report Ecological Site Assessment Individual soil map unit components can be correlated to a particular ecological site. The Ecological Site Assessment section includes ecological site descriptions, plant growth curves, state and transition models, and selected National Plants database information. All Ecological Sites — Rangeland (Eastbank) An "ecological site" is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time; a characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff, that has developed over time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others. For example, the hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The plant community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. An ecological site name provides a general description of a particular ecological site. For example, "Loamy Upland" is the name of a rangeland ecological site. An "ecological site ID" is the symbol assigned to a particular ecological site. The map identifies the dominant ecological site for each map unit, aggregated by dominant condition. Other ecological sites may occur within each map unit. Each map unit typically consists of one or more components (soils and/or miscellaneous areas). Each soil component is associated with an ecological site. Miscellaneous areas, such as rock outcrop, sand dunes, and badlands, have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation and therefore are not linked to an ecological site. The table below the map lists all of the ecological sites for each map unit component in your area of interest. 27 39° 29' 17" 39° 28' 46" 107° 18' 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Map --Dominant Ecological Site (Eastbank) 107° 17' 22" N F Map Scale: 1:6,770 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. Meters 0 50 100 200 300 0 350 700 1,400 Feet 2,100 N 0 39° 29' 18" 39° 28' 4T' Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Map Scale: 1:6,770 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Soil Ratings R048AY298C0 — Rolling Loam Not rated or not available Political Features 0 Cities Water Features Oceans The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 13N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Streams and Canals Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Transportation Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 +++ Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/6/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Ecological Sites by Map Unit Component (Eastbank) Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map unit symbol Component name (percent) Ecological site 1 Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 8 Atencio (45%) R048AY298C0 — Rolling Loam 90.0 79.0% Azeltine (45%) R048AY298C0 — Rolling Loam 11 Begay (90%) R048AY298C0 — Rolling Loam 2.9 2.5% 34 Ildefonso (90%) 12.4 10.9% 73 Water (100%) 8.6 7.5% Totals for Area of Interest 113.9 100.0% 30 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Eastbank) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is 31 Custom Soil Resource Report assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (Eastbank) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] 32 Custom Soil Resource Report Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings– Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 8—Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Atencio 45 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Large stones content 0.01 Large stones content 0.01 Large stones content 0.01 Azeltine 45 Not limited Not limited Not limited 11—Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Begay 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Very limited Large stones content 0.17 Large stones content 0.17 Slope 1.00 Slope 0.04 Slope 0.04 Large stones content 0.17 34—I1defonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Ildefonso 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Large stones content 1.00 Large stones content 1.00 Large stones content 1.00 73—Water Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Eastbank) Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations 33 Custom Soil Resource Report between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic -supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic -supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping (Eastbank) [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range 34 Custom Soil Resource Report from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping– Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Lawns and landscaping Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 8—Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Atencio 45 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Large stones content 0.01 Cutbanks cave 1.00 Droughty 0.15 Large stones content 0.01 Azeltine 45 Not limited Very limited Somewhat limited Cutbanks cave 1.00 Droughty 0.99 Large stones content 0.20 Gravel content 0.09 11—Begay sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Begay 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Large stones content 0.17 Large stones content 0.17 Slope 0.04 Slope 0.04 Cutbanks cave 0.10 Droughty 0.01 Slope 0.04 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Ildefonso 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Large stones content 1.00 Large stones content 1.00 Large stones content 0.84 Cutbanks cave 0.10 Droughty 0.13 73—Water Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated 35 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://soils.usda.gov/ 36 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. 37 0 Demographic and Income Profile Study Area: Custom Shapes Shape: 1 Norris Design Summary 2000 2008 2013 Population 971 1,632 1,957 Households 378 647 779 Families 280 468 556 Average Household Size 2.41 2.42 2.43 Owner Occupied HUs 288 500 595 Renter Occupied HUs 90 146 185 Median Age 33.4 37.0 38.9 Trends: 2008-2013 Annual Rate Area State National Population 3.70% 1.75% 1.23% Households 3.78% 1.70% 1.26% Families 3.51% 1.50% 1.05% Owner HHs 3.54% 1.60% 1.07% Median Household Income 1.04% 3.15% 3.19% 2000 2008 2013 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <$15,000 20 5.4% 22 3.4% 24 3.1% $15,000 - $24,999 46 12.4% 38 5.9% 34 4.4% $25,000 - $34,999 36 9.7% 52 8.0% 60 7.7% $35,000 - $49,999 39 10.5% 105 16.3% 84 10.8% $50,000 - $74,999 63 17.0% 57 8.8% 131 16.8% $75,000 - $99,999 72 19.4% 140 21.7% 110 14.1% $100,000 - $149,999 63 17.0% 148 22.9% 205 26.3% $150,000 - $199,999 16 4.3% 38 5.9% 57 7.3% $200,000+ 16 4.3% 46 7.1% 74 9.5% Median Household Income Average Household Income Per Capita Income $68,578 $81,740 $86,063 $80,909 $97,782 $111,056 $27,111 $34,515 $39,282 2000 2008 2013 Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 4 56 5.8% 91 5.6% 112 5.7% 5 - 9 71 7.3% 89 5.5% 97 5.0% 10 - 14 80 8.2% 103 6.3% 103 5.3% 15 - 19 97 10.0% 140 8.6% 136 7.0% 20 - 24 75 7.7% 134 8.2% 148 7.6% 25 - 34 127 13.1% 216 13.3% 289 14.8% 35 - 44 165 17.0% 217 13.3% 247 12.6% 45 - 54 160 16.5% 277 17.0% 297 15.2% 55 - 64 79 8.1% 215 13.2% 299 15.3% 65 - 74 43 4.4% 89 5.5% 136 7.0% 75 - 84 15 1.5% 46 2.8% 67 3.4% 85+ 4 0.4% 13 0.8% 24 1.2% 2000 2008 2013 Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 865 89.0% 1,418 86.9% 1,678 85.7% Black Alone 2 0.2% 3 0.2% 4 0.2% American Indian Alone 8 0.8% 11 0.7% 14 0.7% Asian Alone 6 0.6% 11 0.7% 15 0.8% Pacific Islander Alone 2 0.2% 3 0.2% 4 0.2% Some Other Race Alone 70 7.2% 151 9.3% 200 10.2% Two or More Races 19 2.0% 34 2.1% 42 2.1% Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 180 18.5% 359 22.0% 474 24.2% Data Note: Income is expressed in current dollars. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. ESRI forecasts for 2008 and 2013. © 2008 ESRI Phone: 800-292-2224 • www.esri.com/bao 1/30/2009 Page 1 of 2 0 Demographic and Income Profile Study Area: Custom Shapes Shape: 1 Norris Design Annual Rate 4.0% - 3.5% - 3.0% - 2.5% - 2.0% - 1.5% - 1.0% - 0.5% - 0.0% Trends 2008-2013 Population Households Families Owner HHs Median HH Income ❑ Area • State ❑ U.S. 0 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Population by Age • 2008 ❑ 2013 0-4 5-9 10 14 15-19 20 24 25 - 34 35 44 45 54 Age Groups 55 64 65 74 75 - 84 85 + 2008 Household Income 5.9% 8.0% 22.9% 16.3% 8.8% 7.1% 3.4%5.9% 21.7% • < $15,000 O $25,000 - $34,999 • $50,000 - $74,999 ■ $100,000 - $149,999 • $200,000+ • $15,000 - $24,999 • $35,000 - $49,999 • $75,000 - $99,999 ■ $150,000 - $199,999 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%c 50% 40%c 30% 20% 10% 0% White Alone 2008 Population by Race Black Alone American Asian Alone Indian Alone 2008 Percent His•anic Ori. in ■ Pacific Some Other Two or More Islander Race Alone Races Alone 22.0% Source: ESRI forecasts for 2008 and 2013. © 2008 ESRI Phone: 800-292-2224 • www.esri.com/bao 1/30/2009 Page 2 of 2 MER® c E NoryUs oEs� NoR Is DEsiG Plennln91 Laadxapa Nchdeclure EASTBANK DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY AREA 0 .5 MILE 1 MILE 2 MILES Zacky MounTain Paleontology PALEONTOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT: GLENWOOD SPRINGS SOUTH BRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Jacobs Carter & Burgess, Inc. 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver CO 80202 Prepared by: Paul C. Murphey, Ph.D. and David J. Daitch Ph.D. Rocky Mountain Paleontology 4614 Lonespur Ct. 470A Brook Circle Oceanside CA 92056 Boulder CO 80302 760-758-4019 303-514-1095; 303-818-6072 www.rockvmountainpaleontology.com Prepared under State of Colorado Paleontological Permit 2008-36 September, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.1 DEFINITION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4 3.0 METHODS 6 4.0. LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 7 4.1. Federal 7 4.2. State 8 4.3. County 8 4.4. City 8 4.5 Private Lands 9 4.6 Permits and Approvals 9 5.0 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 10 5.1 Potential Fossil Yield Classification 10 6.0 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 14 7.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 16 7.1 Paleontological Significance of Western Colorado 16 7.2 Geology and Paleontology 17 7.2.2 Maroon Formation 21 7.2.3 Eagle Valley Formation 21 7.3 Museum Record Searches 21 7.4 Field Survey Results 22 8.0 IMPACTS ANALYSIS 24 8.1 Direct Impacts 24 8.2 Indirect Impacts 24 8.3 Cumulative Impacts 25 8.4 Mitigation Measures 25 8.5 Impacts Analysis 25 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 26 10.0 REFERENCES 27 TABLES 1. LORS Summary 9 2. Paleontological Sensitivities using PFYC System 15 3. Quaternary Surficial Deposits 18 FIGURES 1. Study Area Location Map 5 2. Geologic Map 20 3. Photograph of Study Area 22 4. Photograph of Study Area 22 5. Photograph of Study Area 23 6. Photograph of Study Area 23 Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA - Paleontological Resources Technical Report 2 1.0 SUMMARY The City of Glenwood Springs is proposing the construction of a new bridge providing improved access from SH82 to the Glenwood Springs Airport and adjacent properties located along the west bank of the Roaring Fork River. This paleontological resources assessment is an evaluation of potential impacts on scientifically significant non-renewable paleontological resources which could result from ground disturbance within the study area and included alternatives for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge Environmental Assessment (EA), located in the City of Glenwood Springs. The study area is located on the Glenwood Springs 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle within sections 22, 26 and 27, T.64 S., R. 89 W. (Sixth Principal Meridian), in Garfield County, Colorado (see Figure 1). Specific details regarding the depth and lateral of ground disturbance proposed under the 11 alternatives evaluated in this study area were unavailable at the time of this analysis. However, potential impacts to both surface and subsurface occurrences of paleontological resources are evaluated in this report. The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units within the study area was evaluated by reviewing the scientific literature, geologic mapping and museum records. According to Kirkham et al. (1997), the study area contains 11 mapped geologic units (see Figure 2). These include, from oldest to youngest and in approximate ascending stratigraphic order: the middle Pennsylvanian Eagle Valley Formation; the Pennsylvanian and early Permian Maroon Formation; middle Pleistocene Oldest terrace alluvium; middle Pleistocene Older terrace alluvium; late Pleistocene Intermediate terrace alluvium; late Pleistocene Younger terrace alluvium; Pleistocene Old debris -flow deposits; Holocene and late Pleistocene stream -channel, flood -plain and low terrace deposits; Holocene and latest Pleistocene colluvium; Holocene and latest Pleistocene undivided alluvium and colluvium; and late Holocene Artificial fill. Few fossils have been reported from the Maroon Formation, but any additional discoveries would be of scientific importance. The Eagle Valley Formation locally contains fossil marine invertebrates. These units are considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). Pleistocene -age surficial deposits, especially alluvium, are known to contain fossils in Colorado, but fossils are typically scarce and poorly preserved within them, they are considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). Holocene -age surficial deposits are too young to contain in-situ fossils, and have low paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 2) (see Table 2). No fossils were observed within the study area during the field survey, no reports of fossils from within the study area were found in the literature reviewed for this study, and no records of fossils from within the study area were found during the museum record searches conducted for this study. However, reports of fossils from the Eagle Valley Formation, Maroon Formation, and Pleistocene surficial deposits from elsewhere in Colorado were found in the scientific literature and/or museum records, indicating the potential for fossil occurrences within the study area. Based on the results of this study, and in light of the minimal depth and lateral extent of ground disturbance anticipated to occur in association with the proposed transportation improvements, immediate surface and subsurface paleontological clearance is recommended. If any sub -surface bones or other potential fossils are found anywhere within the study area during ground disturbance, the CDOT Staff Paleontologist should be notified immediately to assess their significance and make further recommendations. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Glenwood Springs is proposing the construction of a new bridge providing improved access from SH82 to the Glenwood Springs Municipal Airport and adjacent properties located to the west of the Roaring Fork River. This paleontological resources assessment is an evaluation of potential impacts on scientifically significant non-renewable paleontological resources which could result from ground disturbance within the study area and included alternatives for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge Environmental Assessment (EA), located in the City of Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). Specific details regarding the depth and geographic extent of anticipated ground disturbance within the study area were not available at the time of this analysis. Therefore, potential adverse impacts on both surface and subsurface impacts are evaluated in this analysis. Geologically, the study area is underlain by middle Pennsylvanian Eagle Valley Formation, Pennsylvanian and early Permian Maroon Formation and Pleistocene and Holocene river terrace deposits. These geologic units are known to contain scientifically significant fossil remains of varying preservation, taxonomic affinity, abundance, and scientific significance, but because they are only sparsely fossiliferous, the Eagle Valle Formation, Maroon Formation and Pleistocene terrace deposits have low paleontological sensitivity. 2.1 DEFINITION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Paleontology is a multidisciplinary science that combines elements of geology, biology, chemistry and physics in an effort to understand the history of life on earth. Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains, imprints or traces of once -living organisms preserved in rocks and sediments. These include mineralized, partially mineralized, or unmineralized bones and teeth, soft tissues, shells, wood, leaf impressions, footprints, burrows, and microscopic remains. The fossil record is the only evidence that life on earth has existed for more than 3.6 billion years. Fossils are considered non-renewable resources because the organisms they represent no longer exist. Thus, once destroyed, a fossil can never be replaced (Murphey and Daitch, 2007). Fossils are important scientific and educational resources because they are used to: • Study the phylogenetic relationships among extinct organisms, as well as their relationships to modern groups. • Elucidate the taphonomic, behavioral, temporal and diagenetic pathways responsible for fossil preservation, including the biases inherent in the fossil record. • Reconstruct ancient environments, climate change, and paleoecological relationships. • Provide a measure of relative geologic dating which forms the basis for biochronology and biostratigraphy, and which is an independent and corroborating line of evidence for isotopic dating. • Study the geographic distribution of organisms and tectonic movements of land masses and ocean basins through time. • Study patterns and processes of evolution, extinction and speciation. • Identify past and potential future human -caused effects to global environments and climates (Murphey and Daitch, 2007). Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 4 0 LcLc 4375000m NJ 301000mE. 302000m E. NAD27 Zone 135 303000m E. 30 000mE. 302000mE. MUE __1000 FEET 0 500 1009 METERS NAD27 Zone 135 30303OmE. 43 77000m N 0 0 +G� z E 8 2 TN *!IMI 11° Figure 1. Location map showing the approximate boundaries of the paleontological study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA in red (Base map: USGS Glenwood Springs 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle). Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 5 3.0 METHODS The purpose of this study is to evaluate the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA by researching their known fossil potential and paleontological significance, and by determining the number and significance of fossil localities within the study area and elsewhere in the same geologic units. The scope of the study included a review of relevant scientific literature, geologic maps, museum records, and a field survey. The museums included in the record search were the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS) and the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History (UCM). The paleontological evaluation procedures for this study were conducted in accordance with SVP (1995) guidelines by qualified and permitted paleontologists (State of Colorado Paleontological Permit 2008-36). This study was conducted at the request of Jacobs Carter & Burgess, Inc., Denver, Colorado. The study area is located on the USGS Glenwood Springs 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle within sections 22, 26 and 27, T.64 S., R. 89 W. (Sixth Principal Meridian), in the City of Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, Colorado (see Figure 1). The field survey for this study was conducted on April 16 and May 12, 2008, and consisted of an inspection of the study area for 1) surface fossils; 2) exposures of potentially fossiliferous rock; and 3) areas in which fossiliferous rocks or younger potentially fossiliferous surficial deposits could be exposed or otherwise impacted during construction -related ground disturbance. For paleontological surveys in general, areas where geologic units of moderate and high paleontological sensitivity are exposed are subject to a 100% pedestrian inspection; areas with exposures of low sensitivity deposits are spot-checked; and areas with no paleontological sensitivity are not inspected. If the geology of an area is uncertain, it is subject to a 100% pedestrian inspection. For this study, all portions of the study area that were not covered by pavement or existing construction were subject to either a pedestrian or drive-by inspection depending upon accessibility. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 6 4.0. LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Fossils are classified as non-renewable scientific resources and are protected by various laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) across the country. Professional standards for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources have been established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (1995, 1996). This paleontological study was conducted in accordance with the LORS which are applicable to paleontological resources within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA (see Table 1). Pertinent federal, state, county and city LORS are summarized below: 4.1. Federal The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321- 4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258 4 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982). NEPA recognizes the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage..." (Sec. 101 [42 USC § 4321]) (#382). The goal of the NEPA process is to make informed, publicly supported decisions regarding environmental issues. Under NEPA, the Federal government requires that: a) all Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions; b) the public be informed of the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions; and c) that the public be involved in planning and analysis relevant to actions that impact the environment. Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 17121c1, 17321b1); sec. 2, Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1962 130 U.S.C. 6111; Subpart 3631.0 et seq.), Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 159, 1982. The FLPMA does not refer specifically to fossils. However, "significant fossils" are understood and recognized in policy as scientific resources. Permits which authorize the collection of significant fossils for scientific purposes are issued under the authority of FLPMA. Under FLPMA, Federal agencies are charged to: a) manage public lands in a manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, archaeological, and water resources, and, where appropriate, preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition (Section 102 (a)(8) (11)); b) periodically inventory public lands so that the data can be used to make informed land -use decisions (Section 102(a)(2); and c) regulate the use and development of public lands and resources through easements, licenses, and permits (Section 302(b)). CFR Title 43 Under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 43, Section 8365.1-5, the collection of scientific resources, including vertebrate fossils, is prohibited without a permit. Except where prohibited, individuals are also authorized to collect some fossils for their personal use. The use of fossils found on Federal lands for commercial purposes is also prohibited. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 7 DOI Report — Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands In 2000, the Secretary of the Interior submitted a report to Congress entitled "Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands." This report was prepared with the assistance of eight federal agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Forest Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Smithsonian Institution. The consulting agencies concluded that administrative and Congressional actions with respect to fossils should be governed by these seven basic principles: a) Fossils on federal land are a part of America's heritage. b) Most vertebrate fossils are rare. c) Some invertebrate and plant fossils are rare. d) Penalties for fossil theft should be strengthened. e) Effective stewardship requires accurate information. f) Federal fossil collections should be preserved and available for research and public education. g) Federal fossil management should emphasize opportunities for public involvement. Federal protection for scientifically significant paleontological resources applies to projects if any construction or other related project impacts occur on federally owned or managed lands, involve the crossing of state lines, or are federally funded. Because this project is partially funded by the FHWA, Federal protections under NEPA apply to paleontological resources within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA. 4.2. State Colorado Historical, Prehistorical and Archaeological Resources Act of 1973 (CRS 24-80-401 to 411, and 24-80-1301 to 1305). Defines permitting requirements and procedures for the collection of prehistoric resources, including paleontological resources, on state lands, and actions that should be taken in the event that resources are discovered in the course of state -funded projects and on state- owned/administered lands. Based on this legislation, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requests assessments on state owned and/or administered lands which have the potential to contain significant paleontological resources, and mitigation monitoring during ground disturbance in these areas. This study will be reviewed by the CDOT because the CDOT is a cooperating agency for this project, and must fulfill FHWA's NEPA requirements. 4.3. County There are no Garfield County LORS that specifically address potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Therefore, no county -level protections of paleontological resources pertain to the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA. 4.4. City There are no City of Glenwood Springs LORS that specifically address potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Therefore, no city -level protections of paleontological resources pertain to the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 8 4.5 Private Lands There are no LORS applicable to paleontological resources which occur on privately owned lands in the state of Colorado. Table 1. Summary of paleontological laws, ordinances, regulations and standards applicable to the Glenwood Snrin s South Bride EA. Agency/Owner Pertinent Paleontological LORS Federal Assessment required by FHWA under NEPA State Assessment required by CDOT under CHPA County None City None Private None 4.6 Permits and Approvals A State of Colorado Paleontological Permit is required to collect fossils on state owned or administered lands in Colorado. If paleontological mitigation is requested by the CDOT or other state agency, the Project Paleontologist and other paleontological personnel would be required to possess a State of Colorado paleontological permit. The paleontological mitigation program would need approval by the CDOT Staff Paleontologist or other state agency, including review and approval the final mitigation report. All fossils collected during mitigation would be required to be housed in an approved repository such as the DMNS or UCM, where they would be curated and permanently stored. This would ensure their availability for future scientific research, education and display. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 9 5.0 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The paleontological sensitivity of each geologic unit within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA was evaluated using the Potential Fossil Yield Classification system. This PFYC system was originally developed by the Forest Service's Paleontology Center of Excellence and the Region 2 Paleontology Initiative in 1996. Modifications have been made by the BLM's Paleontological Resources staff in subsequent years. The PFYC version used for this analysis was recently approved and adopted as policy by the BLM (BLM, 2007: IM 2008-009). This classification system is summarized below: 5.1 Potential Fossil Yield Classification Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely tied to the geologic units (i.e., formations, members, or beds) that contain them. The probability for finding paleontological resources can be broadly predicted from the geologic units present at or near the surface. Therefore, geologic mapping can be used for assessing the potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources. Using the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher class number indicating a higher potential. This classification is applied to the geologic formation, member, or other distinguishable unit, preferably at the most detailed mappable level. It is not intended to be applied to specific paleontological localities or small areas within units. Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher class; instead, the relative abundance of significant localities is intended to be the major determinant for the class assignment. The PFYC system is meant to provide baseline guidance for predicting, assessing, and mitigating paleontological resources. The classification should be considered at an intermediate point in the analysis, and should be used to assist in determining the need for further mitigation assessment or actions. The descriptions for the classes below are written to serve as guidelines rather than as strict definitions. Knowledge of the geology and the paleontological potential for individual units or preservational conditions should be considered when determining the appropriate class assignment. Assignments are best made by collaboration between land managers and knowledgeable researchers. Class 1— Very Low. Geologic units that are not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains. • Units that are igneous or metamorphic, excluding reworked volcanic ash units. • Units that are Precambrian in age or older. (1) Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 1 units is usually negligible or not applicable. (2) Assessment or mitigation is usually unnecessary except in very rare or isolated circumstances. The probability for impacting any fossils is negligible. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is usually unnecessary. The occurrence of significant fossils is non-existent or extremely rare. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 10 Class 2 — Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. • Vertebrate or significant invertebrate or plant fossils not present or very rare. • Units that are generally younger than 10,000 years before present. • Recent aeolian deposits. • Sediments that exhibit significant physical and chemical changes (i.e., diagenetic alteration). (1) Management concern for paleontological resources is generally low. (2) Assessment or mitigation is usually unnecessary except in rare or isolated circumstances. The probability for impacting vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils is low. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is not likely to be necessary. Localities containing important resources may exist, but would be rare and would not influence the classification. These important localities would be managed on a case-by-case basis. Class 3 — Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. • Often marine in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. • Vertebrate fossils and scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils known to occur intermittently; predictability known to be low. (or) • Poorly studied and/or poorly documented. Potential yield cannot be assigned without ground reconnaissance. Class 3a — Moderate Potential. Units that are known to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered. Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found in the area, and opportunities may exist for hobby collecting. The potential for a project to be sited on or impact a significant fossil locality is low, but is somewhat higher for common fossils. Class 3b — Unknown Potential. Units exhibit geologic features and preservational conditions that suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the paleontological resources of the unit or the area is known. This may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied, and field surveys may uncover significant finds. The units in this Class may eventually be placed in another Class when sufficient survey and research is performed. The unknown potential of the units in this Class should be carefully considered when developing any mitigation or management actions. (1) Management concern for paleontological resources is moderate; or cannot be determined from existing data. (2) Surface -disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine appropriate course of action. This classification includes a broad range of paleontological potential. It includes geologic units of unknown potential, as well as units of moderate or infrequent occurrence of significant fossils. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 11 Management considerations cover a broad range of options as well, and could include pre - disturbance surveys, monitoring, or avoidance. Surface -disturbing activities will require sufficient assessment to determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the paleontological resources. These units may contain areas that would be appropriate to designate as hobby collection areas due to the higher occurrence of common fossils and a lower concern about affecting significant paleontological resources. Class 4 — High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface disturbing activities may adversely affect paleontological resources in many cases. Class 4a — Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive with exposed bedrock areas often larger than two acres. Paleontological resources may be susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing actions. Illegal collecting activities may impact some areas. Class 4b — These are areas underlain by geologic units with high potential but have lowered risks of human -caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating circumstances. The bedrock unit has high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the activity. • Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be impacted. • Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres. • Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by topographic conditions. • Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified paleontological resources. (1) Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 4 is moderate to high, depending on the proposed action. (2) A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is often needed to assess local conditions. (3) Management prescriptions for resource preservation and conservation through controlled access or special management designation should be considered. (4) Class 4 and Class 5 units may be combined as Class 5 for broad applications, such as planning efforts or preliminary assessments, when geologic mapping at an appropriate scale is not available. Resource assessment, mitigation, and other management considerations are similar at this level of analysis, and impacts and alternatives can be addressed at a level appropriate to the application. The probability for impacting significant paleontological resources is moderate to high, and is dependent on the proposed action. Mitigation considerations must include assessment of the disturbance, such as removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, or increased ease of access resulting in greater looting potential. If impacts to significant fossils can be anticipated, on -the -ground surveys prior to authorizing the surface disturbing action will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring or spot-checking may be necessary during construction activities. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 12 Class 5 — Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human -caused adverse impacts or natural degradation. Class 5a — Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive with exposed bedrock areas often larger than two contiguous acres. Paleontological resources are highly susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing actions. Unit is frequently the focus of illegal collecting activities. Class 5b — These are areas underlain by geologic units with very high potential but have lowered risks of human -caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating circumstances. The bedrock unit has very high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the activity. • Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be impacted. • Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres. • Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by topographic conditions. • Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified paleontological resources. (1) Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 5 areas is high to very high. (2) A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is usually necessary prior to surface disturbing activities or land tenure adjustments. Mitigation will often be necessary before and/or during these actions. (3) Official designation of areas of avoidance, special interest, and concern may be appropriate. The probability for impacting significant fossils is high. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils are known or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted area. On -the -ground surveys prior to authorizing any surface disturbing activities will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring may be necessary during construction activities. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 13 6.0 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT According to Kirkham et al. (1997), the study area contains 11 mapped geologic units (see Figure 2). These include, from oldest to youngest and in approximate ascending stratigraphic order: the middle Pennsylvanian Eagle Valley Formation; the Pennsylvanian and early Permian Maroon Formation; middle Pleistocene Oldest terrace alluvium; middle Pleistocene Older terrace alluvium; late Pleistocene Intermediate terrace alluvium; late Pleistocene Younger terrace alluvium; Pleistocene Old debris -flow deposits; Holocene and late Pleistocene stream -channel, flood -plain and low terrace deposits; Holocene and latest Pleistocene colluvium; Holocene and latest Pleistocene undivided alluvium and colluvium; and late Holocene Artificial fill. The paleontological sensitivity of every geologic unit within the study area was evaluated using the recently revised PFYC, which was presented in Section 5.1. The results are summarized in Table 2. Few fossils have been reported from the Eagle Valley and Maroon formations, but any discoveries would be of great utility in constraining the age of these units, and they are therefore considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). Scientifically significant vertebrate fossils have been discovered in the Sangre de Cristo Formation to the southeast of study area in the Arkansas River Valley, and this formation is correlative with the Maroon Formation. Pleistocene - age surficial deposits, especially alluvium, are known to contain fossils in Colorado, but fossils are typically scarce and poorly preserved within them, they are considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). Holocene -age surficial deposits are too young to contain in-situ fossils, and have low paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 2). Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 14 Table 2. Summarized paleontological sensitivities of geologic units within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA using the Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. Map abbreviations and ages of units are from Kirkham et al. (1997). Geologic Unit Map Abbreviation Age Typical Fossils PFYC Artificial Fill of Late Holocene No in-situ fossils Class 2 Undivided alluvium and colluvium Qac Holocene and latest Pleistocene Pleistocene: generally uncommon and mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Holocene: no in-situ fossils Class 2 and Class 3a Colluvium Qc Holocene and latest Pleistocene Pleistocene: generally uncommon and mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Holocene: no in-situ fossils Class 2 and Class 3a Stream -channel, flood- plain and low terrace deposits Qa Holocene and late Pleistocene Pleistocene: generally uncommon and mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Holocene: no in-situ fossils Class 2 and Class 3a Old debris -flow deposits Qdfo Pleistocene Generally uncommon occurrences of mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants Class 3a Younger terrace alluvium Qty Late Pleistocene Generally uncommon occurrences of mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants Class 3a Intermediate terrace alluvium Qtm Late Pleistocene Generally uncommon occurrences of mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants Class 3a Older terrace alluvium Qto middle Pleistocene Generally uncommon occurrences of mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants Class 3a Oldest terrace alluvium Qtt middle Pleistocene Generally uncommon occurrences of mostly poorly preserved vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants Class 3a Maroon Formation PPm Pennsylvanian and early Permian Uncommon invertebrates, wood, algal globules, and trace fossils; vertebrates known from correlative strata in the Salida, CO area Class 3a Eagle Valley Formation Pe middle Pennsylvanian Locally common and diverse marine invertebrates, rare vertebrates and trace fossils Class 3a Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 15 7.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 7.1 Paleontological Significance of Western Colorado Western Colorado has had a long history of paleontologic and geologic exploration and inquiry. The first fossils that were scientifically collected in Colorado were fossil insects discovered in rocks of what would later be recognized as the Green River Formation. These were collected by Professor W. Denton in 1865 in bluffs along the White River near the present location of the Colorado -Utah state line (Armstrong and Wolny, 1989). Beginning in 1867, Samuel H. Scudder, the founder of American insect paleontology, one-time assistant to Louis Agassiz (1862-1864), and later USGS Paleontologist (1886-1892), confirmed Denton's discoveries and spent the following 30 years collecting and describing fossil insects of northwestern Colorado (Armstrong and Wolny, 1989). Many of these specimens were included in Scudder's classic monograph, The Tertiary Insects of North America (1890). The first scientifically collected vertebrate fossil reported from Colorado was discovered during the Hayden survey of 1869. This fossil, a broken caudal (tail) vertebra of a theropod dinosaur discovered in the late -Jurassic Morrison Formation in Middle Park, Colorado, was thought to be a "petrified horse hoof' by the field party that collected it. It was scientifically described by the well- known early north American paleontologist Joseph Leidy. Leidy later assigned the generic name Antrodemus to this specimen, but the name Antrodemus was subsequently synonymized with the genus Allosaurus, which had nomenclatural priority because it was based on a much more complete skeleton discovered by O.C. Marsh in 1877 in Fremont County, Colorado (Armstrong and Wolny 1989). According to now retired University of Colorado Paleontologist Professor Peter Robinson (personal communication 2000), the Antrodemus caudal vertebra may have been discovered near the Green Mountain Dam in Middle Park. In 1909, Junius Henderson, founder of the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History, worked in northwestern Colorado, collecting and studying invertebrate fossils from the Cretaceous Mancos Shale. During a trip to Meeker, Colorado, in 1909, he recognized that the formation on the western flank of the Grand Hogback was the "Wasatch" (Henderson field notes, 1909). Henderson, an invertebrate paleontologist, was in the same area later and collected fossil vertebrates, although his primary research interest was fossil mollusks. Professor T.D.A. Cockerell, a cofounder of the University of Colorado Museum, spent 30 years studying fossil insects from the Piceance Creek Basin and elsewhere in Colorado. Cockerell, a self-taught insect biologist and paleontologist with no college degrees, published prolifically throughout his long career. Around 1900, paleontologist E.S. Riggs of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago excavated dinosaur fossils from the Morrison Formation just to the west of Grand Junction. In 1923, Earl Douglas of the Carnegie Museum apparently became the first vertebrate paleontologist to discover fossil vertebrates in the "Wasatch" Formation of the Piceance Creek Basin at the Blacks Gulch/Scenery Gulch area west of Meeker. Paleontologist Bryan Patterson and a crew from the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago worked in the Rifle area for several summers before 1940 and then again in 1946. These expeditions resulted in important fossil collections of late Paleocene and Eocene age from the Piceance Creek Basin. A number of specimens were also sent to the Denver Museum of Natural History, now the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 16 Denver Museum of Nature and Science. In 1961, William Turnbull of the Field Museum collected from a rich fossil locality near Silt, Colorado. Patterson's work resulted in a large number of paleontological publications based on the vertebrate faunal assemblages of the DeBeque (Wasatch) Formation (Patterson, 1933; 1934; 1937; 1939; 1949; Patterson and West, 1973). In 1976, Allen Kihm began his fieldwork in the Piceance Creek Basin as a graduate student at the University of Colorado. His work culminated in his doctoral dissertation (Kihm, 1984). Professor Peter Robinson, then Curator of Paleontology at the University of Colorado Museum, arranged for Bryan Patterson to return to the area and show Robinson and Kihm his collecting sites from the 1930s. Kihm's doctoral research, which has not yet been formally published, resulted in a large collection of stratigraphically positioned and biostratigraphically documented fossils of Tiffanian to Wasatchian (Lostcabinian) NALMA. Personnel from the University of Colorado Museum, including Professor Robinson who is now retired, periodically continue to collect fossils in the DeBeque and Green River formations in the Piceance Creek Basin and adjacent areas of western Colorado. In recent years, these fossil -collecting efforts have been complemented by those of paleontologists contracted by commercial oil, gas, and mineral exploration companies to meet federal environmental requirements on BLM-administered lands. The known fossil record of western Colorado has been significantly augmented by these efforts. 7.2 Geology and Paleontology According to Kirkham et al. (1997), the study area contains 11 mapped geologic units (see Figure 2). These include, from oldest to youngest and in approximate ascending stratigraphic order: the middle Pennsylvanian Eagle Valley Formation; the Pennsylvanian and early Permian Maroon Formation; middle Pleistocene Oldest terrace alluvium; middle Pleistocene Older terrace alluvium; late Pleistocene Intermediate terrace alluvium; late Pleistocene Younger terrace alluvium; Pleistocene Old debris -flow deposits; Holocene and late Pleistocene stream -channel, flood -plain and low terrace deposits; Holocene and latest Pleistocene colluvium; Holocene and latest Pleistocene undivided alluvium and colluvium; and late Holocene Artificial fill. The following is a general discussion of the geology and paleontology of these units. 7.2.1 Pleistocene and Holocene Surficial Deposits Information regarding lithologies and thicknesses of the nine mapped surficial deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA is summarized in Table 3. The distribution of these units within the study area is shown in Figure 2. Pleistocene -age deposits, particularly alluvium, may contain mineralized or partially mineralized animal bones, invertebrates, and plant remains of paleontological significance. With the exception of some caves, hot springs, and tar deposits, these fossils typically occur in low density and usually consist of scattered and poorly preserved remains. The most common Pleistocene vertebrate fossils include the bones of mammoth, bison, deer, and small mammals; however, other taxa, including horse, lion, cheetah, wolf, camel, antelope, peccary, mastodon, and giant ground sloth, have been reported from the Rocky Mountain region (Cook, 1930, 1931; Emslie, 1986; Gillette and Miller, 1999; Gillette et al., 1999a, b; Graham and Lundelius, 1994; Heaton, 1999; Hunt, 1954; Lewis, 1970; Scott, 1963; Smith et al., 1999; unpublished paleontological data, Denver Museum of Nature and Science; unpublished paleontological data, University of Colorado Museum). Pleistocene surficial deposits within the study area are considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 17 Table 3. Composition of Quaternary surficial deposits within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA. Map abbreviations, ages and descriptions of units are from Kirkham et al. (1997). Geologic Unit Map Abbreviation Age Lithologic Composition Artificial Fill of Late Holocene Fill and waste rock deposited by humans during construction and mining activities. Consists mostly of silt, sand and rock fragments, but may include construction materials. Maximum thickness of approximately 50 feet on Glenwood Springs Quadrangle. Undivided alluvium and colluvium Qac Holocene and latest Pleistocene Primarily stream channel, low terrace and flood - plain deposits occurring along the valley floors of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams, with colluvium and sheetwash common on valley sides. Alluvium and colluvium are probably interfingered. Locally includes younger debris -flow deposits. The alluvium is typically composed of poorly -sorted to well - sorted, stratified, interbedded pebbly sand, sandy silt, and sandy gravel. The colluvium may range from unsorted, unstratified or poorly stratified, clayey, silty sand, bouldery sand, and sandy silt. Thickness is commonly 5 to 20 feet, with a maximum of 40 feet. Colluvium Qc Holocene and latest Pleistocene Ranges from unsorted, clast-supported, pebble to boulder gravel in a sandy silt matrix to matrix -supported gravelly, clayey, sandy silt. Derived from weathered bedrock and surficial deposits and is transported downslope by gravity and sheetwash. Locally, it grades to sheetwash deposits on flatter slopes and to debris flow deposits in some drainages. Clast lithology is variable and dependent upon types of source rocks. Maximum thickness approximately 40 to 60 feet. Stream -channel, flood -plain and low terrace deposits Qa Holocene and late Pleistocene Includes modern alluvium and other deposits along the Roaring Fork River, adjacent flood - plain deposits, and low terrace alluvium as much as 15 feet above modern stream level. Mostly clast-supported, silty, sandy, occasionally boulder, pebble and cobble gravel in a sandy or silty matrix. Locally interbedded with and commonly overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Maximum thickness of 154 feet (in Glenwood Canyon). Old debris -flow deposits Qdfo Pleistocene Sediments deposited by debris -flows, hyper - concentrated flows, streams, and sheetwash on active fans and in stream channels. Ranges from poorly sorted to moderately well sorted , matrix supported, gravelly, sandy, clayey silt, to clast- supported, pebble and cobble gravel in a sandy, clayey silt or silty sand matrix. Occurs on ridgelines and mesas as remnants of formerly Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 18 Surficial deposits of Holocene age within the study area contain the unfossilized remains of modern species of animals and plants, and do not contain in-situ fossils. Therefore, they are considered to have low paleontological sensitivity. The geographic distribution of the Quaternary surficial deposits within the study are shown in Figure 2. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 19 extensive debris -fans deposited by tributaries of the Roaring Fork River. May be highly calcareous. Contains boulders of up to 5 feet in diameter. Locally includes thin beds of tufa and tufa-cemented gravel. Thicknesses typically range from 30 to 60 feet, but may locally exceed 160 feet. Younger terrace alluvium Qty Late Pleistocene Chiefly stream alluvium underlying terraces that range from about 19 to 56 feet above modem stream level. Locally the unit is capped by a single sheet of loess. Consists mostly of poorly - sorted, clast-supported, occasionally bouldery, pebble and cobble gravel with a sand matrix that was deposited as glacial outwash. Fine-grained overbank deposits occur locally. Maximum thickness may exceed 100 feet, but unit is locally much thinner Intermediate terrace alluvium Qtm Late Pleistocene Composed of stream alluvium underlying terraces about 58 to 95 feet above modern stream level. Locally the unit is capped by a single sheet of loess. It consists mostly of poorly -sorted, clast-supported, occasionally bouldery, pebble and cobble gravel with a sand matrix that was deposited as glacial outwash. Fine-grained overbank deposits occur locally. Thickness averages approximately 20 to 50 feet, with a maximum thickness of approximately 100 feet. Older terrace alluvium Qto middle Pleistocene Includes deposits of stream alluvium that range from about 110 to 160 feet above the Roaring Fork and adjacent rivers. Unit was deposited as glacial outwash and is generally a clast- supported cobble or pebble gravel in a sand matrix with occasional small boulders, but may range to matrix -supported, gravelly sand or gravelly silt. Locally contains thin tufa- cemented gravel beds and fine-grained overbank deposits. Maximum thickness approximately 130 feet. Oldest terrace alluvium Qtt middle Pleistocene Consists of a single deposit of stream alluvium West of the Glenwood Springs Municipal Airport that ranges from approximately 220 to 360 feet above the adjacent Roaring Fork River. It is partially overlain by older debris flow deposits. Unit is poorly to moderately well sorted, clast-supported, slightly bouldery, cobble and pebble gravel with a sand matrix that was deposited as glacial outwash. Locally includes thin lenses and beds of sandy silt and silty sand. Maximum thickness of approximately 100 feet. Surficial deposits of Holocene age within the study area contain the unfossilized remains of modern species of animals and plants, and do not contain in-situ fossils. Therefore, they are considered to have low paleontological sensitivity. The geographic distribution of the Quaternary surficial deposits within the study are shown in Figure 2. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 19 Figure 2. Geologic map showing the boundaries of the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA in red (from Kirkham et al., 1997). See tables 2 and 3 for geologic unit abbreviations. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 20 7.2.2 Maroon Formation The Middle Pennsylvanian to early Permian Maroon Formation is fluvial and possibly eolian in origin (Tweto and Lovering, 1977). Lithologically, it is composed principally of reddish conglomerate, conglomeratic sandstone, arkosic and commonly cross -bedded sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, claystone, and shale with minor thin non -marine limestone beds (Bass and Northrop 1963). It is arkosic and very micaceous. The total unit thickness of the Maroon Formation is approximately 3,000 to 4,000 feet on the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle (Kirkham et al., 1997). The limestone beds contain scattered brachiopods, crinoids, corals, and bivalves. Fossil wood identified as belonging to the genus Dadoxylon has been reported (written communication from Scott, 1961, cited by Tweto and Lovering, 1977), as have abundant microfossils in thin section samples, that include fecal pellets, ostracods and globules suggestive of a siphonaceous alga similar to Gymnocodium (Tweto and Lovering, 1977). In the Sangre de Cristo Formation, which is correlative with the Maroon Formation, an important vertebrate fossil locality exists. The "Badger Creek locality" is located near Salida, Colorado, and has produced an important and diverse faunal assemblage including pelycosaurian-grade synapsids (Sumida and Berman, 1993), diadectomorph, anthracosaurian, temnospondyl, and lepospondyl amphibians, and elasmobranch and palaeoniscoid fishes (Berman and Sumida, 1990, 1995; Sumida and Berman, 1993; Vaughn, 1969, 1972) Although fossils are uncommon in the Maroon Formation, any additional discoveries would be very important scientifically, and thus this unit is considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). The geographic distribution of the Maroon Formation within the study area is shown in Figure 2 (light blue, abbreviated PPm). 7.2.3 Eagle Valley Formation The Middle Pennsylvanian Eagle Valley Formation is composed of interbedded reddish -brown, gray, reddish -gray, and tan siltstone, shale, gypsum, gypsiferous siltstone, sandstone, and carbonate rocks. The unit is generally considered to represent a stratigraphic interval in which the predominant red beds of the Maroon Formation grade into and intertongue with the dominantly evaporitic rocks of the Eagle Valley Evaporite (Kirkham et al., 1997), and is therefore thought to be conformable with the under- and overlying units. The Eagle Valley Formation was deposited in the Eagle Basin on the margin of an evaporite basin at the distal end of a coalescing alluvial fan complex and in a submarine environment within the evaporite basin. The thickness of the Eagle Valley Formation is variable, and ranges from about 500 to 1,000 feet thick on the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle (Kirkham et al., 1997). Fossils known from the Eagle Valley Formation include locally abundant and moderately diverse marine invertebrates including bryozoans, brachiopods, crinoids, corals, and bivalves (Bass and Northrop 1963). The Eagle Valley Formation is considered to have moderate paleontological sensitivity (PFYC Class 3a). The geographic distribution of the Eagle Valley Formation within the study area is shown in Figure 2 (dark blue, abbreviated Pe). 7.3 Museum Record Searches Because paleontological locality data are confidential and are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, only general fossil locality information is provided in this report. Neither the UCM nor the DMNS have any fossil localities recorded within or nearby the study area for the Glenwood Springs South EA. The CDOT Staff Paleontologist provided an unpublished report of an ulna (lower Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 21 forelimb bone) of the Pleistocene horse Equus cf. E. conversidens. This fossil was collected ex -situ from the stream bed of the Roaring Fork River 3.2 miles from Snowmass near MP 30 along SH 82. Also unpublished is a report of a fossil trackway in the Maroon Formation along I-70 near MP 109 west of Glenwood Springs that was discovered by Professor Martin Lockley of UCD (Steve Wallace, written communication, 2008). No other records of fossil localities near the study area were found. The results of the museum record searches in combination with these unpublished reports indicate that fossils do occur, but are uncommon in the same geologic units in the Glenwood Springs area, including the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA. 7.4 Field Survey Results No fossils were observed within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA. Most of the surface of the study area is covered with vegetation and existing development. Based on geologic mapping (Kirkham et al., 1997), and as verified by the results of the field survey, the only two pre -Quaternary geologic units that occur within the study area are the Maroon and the Eagle Valley formations. These units, both of which are only sparsely fossiliferous, are located only along the extreme edges of the study area or are represented by limited outcrops within it, and are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed transportation improvements. The Maroon Formation (PPM, figure 2) outcrops along the eastern and western edges of the study area, with bedrock grading into colluvium and debris flows on the lower valley slopes (Figure 3). Two outcrops of Eagle Valley Formation (Pe, Figure 2) occur near the center of the study area near the old coke ovens to the west of the Glenwood Municipal Airport. Geographically, the surface of the study area is mostly composed of Quaternary surficial deposits, and most of these consist of alluvium deposited by the Roaring Fork River (figures 4-6). The largest of these is a relatively widespread deposit mapped as late Pleistocene intermediate terrace alluvium (Qtm, figure 2). The Pleistocene river terrace deposits are of varying ages, and have the potential to contain fossils as do other deposits of Pleistocene age within the study area. However, these deposits are only sparsely fossiliferous, so that impacts on scientifically significant fossils associated with the proposed transportation improvements within the study area are anticipated to be negligible. Figure 3. View looking north along SH 82 at colluvium nd outcrops of Maroon Formation on east side of highway UTM 13, 301917 mE, 4375545 mN). Figure 4. View looking northwest at Pleistocene alluvial terrace deposit along Roaring Fork River near southern boundary of study area (UTM 13, 303295 mE, 4372588 Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 22 Figure 5. View looking northeast through study area across Pleistocene alluvial terrace deposit (UTM 13, 300891 mE, 4373665 mN). Figure 6. View looking north across the Roaring Fork River just south of the Red Canyon inlet (UTM 13, 301672 mE, 4377841 mN). Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 23 8.0 IMPACTS ANALYSIS The loss of any identifiable fossil that could yield information important to prehistory, or that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of organism, environment, period of time, or geographic region, would be a significant adverse environmental impact. When potentially fossiliferous bedrock or surficial sediments are disturbed, project -related excavations may result in the destruction of surface or subsurface paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information (adverse impact). However, ground disturbance may also result in the exposure of fossils that may never have been unearthed by natural means. If mitigation measures are implemented, these newly exposed fossils become available for salvage, data recovery, scientific analysis, and preservation into perpetuity at a public museum (beneficial impact). Most adverse impacts can typically be mitigated to below a level of significance through the implementation of a paleontological mitigation. In general, for areas that contain paleontologically sensitive geologic formations, the greater the degree of project -related surface disturbance, the higher the potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. For sites that contain geologic formations with lower paleontological sensitivity, there is a low potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources include direct (construction -related) impacts, indirect (operations -related) impacts, and cumulative impacts created by the potential long-term loss of the resources to society. These impacts are summarized below. 8.1 Direct Impacts Direct impacts on surface or sub -surface paleontological resources are the result of destruction via breakage and crushing in construction -related excavations. Ground disturbance has the potential to adversely impact an unknown quantity of fossils which may occur on or underneath the surface in areas containing paleontologically sensitive geologic units. Without mitigation, these fossils, as well as the paleontological data they could provide if properly salvaged and documented, could be adversely impacted (destroyed), rendering them permanently unavailable. Direct impacts can typically be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of paleontological mitigation. Mitigation also creates a beneficial impact because it results in the salvage of fossils that may never have been unearthed via natural processes. With mitigation, these newly exposed fossils become available for scientific research, education, display, and preservation into perpetuity at a public museum. The potential for direct adverse impacts on scientifically significant sub -surface fossils in fossiliferous sedimentary deposits known to contain them is controlled by two factors. These include: 1) the depth and lateral extent of disturbance of fossiliferous bedrock and/or surficial sediments; and 2) the depth and lateral extent of occurrence of fossiliferous bedrock and/or surficial sediments beneath the surface. Where the depth of disturbance exceeds the depth of occurrence, potential adverse direct impacts may occur due to breakage and crushing of fossils during ground disturbance associated with construction. 8.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts typically include those effects which result from the continuing implementation of management decisions and associated activities, or the normal ongoing operations of facilities Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 24 constructed within a specific project area. They also occur as the result of the construction of new roads in areas that were previously inaccessible, which increases public access and therefore increases the likelihood of the loss of paleontological resources through vandalism and unlawful collecting (poaching). Indirect impacts are difficult to mitigate to below the level of significance, but they can be greatly reduced by informing construction personnel and the general public about the scientific importance of paleontological resources, their protections under the law, and penalties for unlawful destruction or illegal collection of these resources. 8.3 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. In general, if previously unrecorded scientifically significant paleontological resources are present within the study area, the potential cumulative impacts would be low, so long as mitigation was implemented to salvage the resources. Mitigation measures would effectively recover the value to science and society of significant fossils that would otherwise have been destroyed by surface disturbing actions. 8.4 Mitigation Measures Paleontological mitigation measures that are recommended based on the results of a paleontological assessment such as this study typically include one or more of the following elements: • Clearance • Sampling • Monitoring • Salvage • Avoidance Based on the results of this study, immediate paleontological clearance is recommended (see Section 9.0), so a detailed description of the paleontological mitigation measures listed above is not included in this report. Paleontological clearance is defined as follows: Based on pre -field survey research and/or field survey results, if adverse impacts on paleontological resources are anticipated to be non-existent or below the level of significance for a given surface disturbing action, and no further consideration of paleontological resources is deemed necessary, immediate paleontological clearance is recommended. A clearance recommendation can be made for an entire project area or any portion thereof depending on paleontological sensitivity. 8.5 Impacts Analysis No fossil localities are known to exist within the study area for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA, and no fossils were observed within it during the field survey. All of the geologic units within the alternatives analyzed for this study are considered to have low or moderate paleontological sensitivity using the PFYC (see Section 6.0). Furthermore, under all alternatives, the amount of ground disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed transportation improvements is anticipated to be minimal, taking place mostly at or below existing grade. In summary, none of the alternatives analyzed have a greater or lesser potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources than the others. Adverse impacts under all alternatives is anticipated to be below the level of significance. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 25 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on the results of this study, potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources are expected to be below the level of significance under all alternatives. Therefore, immediate paleontological clearance is recommended for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA study area. 2) If any sub -surface bones or other potential fossils are found anywhere within the study area during construction, the CDOT Staff Paleontologist should be notified immediately to assess their significance and make further mitigation recommendations. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 26 10.0 REFERENCES Armstrong, H.J. and D.G. Wolny, 1989, Paleontological resources of Northwest Colorado: A regional analysis: Museum of Western Colorado, Grand Junction. Bass, N.W., and S.A. Northrup, 1963, Geology of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle and vicinity, Northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1142-J, p. J1 -J74, geologic map at 1:31,680 scale. Berman, D.S., and Sumida, S.S., 1990, A new species ofLimnoscelis (Amphibia, Diadectomorpha) from the late Pennsylvanian Sangre de Cristo Formation of Central Colorado: Annals of Carnegie Museum, 59(4), p. 303-341. Berman, D.S., and Sumida, S.S., 1995, New cranial material of the rare diadectid Desmatodon hesperis (Diadectomorpha) from the late Pennsylvanian of Central Colorado: Annals of Carnegie Museum, 64(4), p. 315-336. Bureau of Land Management, 2007, Potential Fossil Yield Classification System: BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009 (PFYC revised from USFS, 1996). Cook, H.J., 1930, Occurrence of mammoth and giant bison in Glacial moraines in the high mountains of Colorado: Science, v. 72, no. 1855, p. 68. Cook, H.J., 1931, More evidence of mammoths in the high mountains of Colorado: Science, v. 73, no. 1889, p. 283-284. Denver Museum of Nature and Science, unpublished paleontological specimen and locality data. Emslie, S.D., 1986, Late Pleistocene vertebrates from Gunnison County, Colorado: Journal of Paleontology, v. 60, no. 1, p. 170-176. Gillette, D. D., H. G. McDonald and M. C. Hayden, 1999a, The first record of Jefferson's Ground Sloth, Megalonyx Jeffersonii, in Utah (Pleistocene, Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age): In: Vertebrate paleontology in Utah Miscellaneous Publication - Utah Geological Survey, 99- 1:509-522. Gillette, D. D., C. J. Bell and M. C. Hayden, 1999b, Preliminary report of the Little Dell Dam fauna, Salt Lake County, Utah (Middle Pleistocene, Irvingtonian Land mammal Age): In: Vertebrate paleontology in Utah: Miscellaneous Publication - Utah Geological Survey, 99- 1:495-500. Gillette, D. D. and W. E. Miller, 1999, Catalogue of new Pleistocene mammalian sites and recovered fossils from Utah In: Vertebrate paleontology in Utah: Miscellaneous Publication - Utah Geological Survey, 99-1:523-530. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 27 Graham, R.W., and Lundelius, E.L., 1994, FAUNMAP: A database documenting the late Quaternary distributions of mammal species in the United States: Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol XXV, no. 1, 287 p. Heaton, T. H., 1999, Late Quaternary vertebrate history of the Great Basin: In: Vertebrate paleontology in Utah: Miscellaneous Publication - Utah Geological Survey, 99-1:501-508. Henderson, J., 1909, Field Notes, University of Colorado Museum, transcribed by Professor Peter Robinson. Hunt, C.B., 1954, Pleistocene and Recent deposits in the Denver area, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 996-C, pp. 91-140. Kihm, A.J., 1984, Early Eocene mammalian faunas of the Piceance Creek basin, northwestern Colorado: University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, United States (USA) Doctoral Dissertation. Kirkham, R.M., Streufert, R.K., and Cappa, J.A., 1997, Geologic map of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Map MS 31, 1 sheet (scale 1:24,000). Lewis, G.E., 1970, New discoveries of Pleistocene bison and peccaries in Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-B, p. B137 -B140. Murphey, P.C., and Daitch, D., 2007, Paleontological overview of oil shale and tar sands areas in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming: U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, 468 p. and 6 maps (scale 1:500,000). Patterson, B., 1933, A new species of the amblypod Titanoides from Western Colorado: American Journal of Science, 25(149):415-425. Patterson, B., 1934, A contribution to the osteology of Titanoides and the relationships of the Amblypoda: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 73:71-102. Patterson, B., 1937, A new genus, Barylambda, for Titanoides faberi, Paleocene amblypod: Geological Series Field Museum of Natural History, 6:229-231. Patterson, B., 1939, New Pantodonta and Dinocerata from the Upper Paleocene of western Colorado: Geological Series Field Museum of Natural History, 6:351-384. Patterson, B., 1949, A new genus of taeniodont from the late Paleocene: Fieldiana: Geology, 10:41- 42. Patterson, B. and R.M. West, 1973, A new late Paleocene phenacodont (Mammalia, Condylarthra) from western Colorado: Breviora, 403:1-7. Robinson, P., 2000, personal communication regarding the location of the Antrodemus locality. Professor Peter Robinson is Curator Emeritus at the University of Colorado Museum. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 28 Scott, G.R., 1963, Quaternary geology and geomorphic history of the Kassler Quadrangle, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 421-A, 70 p. Smith, K. S., R. L. Cifelli and N. J. Czaplewski, 1999, An early Holocene, high-altitude vertebrate faunule from central Utah: In: Vertebrate paleontology in Utah: Miscellaneous Publication - Utah Geological Survey, 99-1:537-543. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995, Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources — standard guidelines: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 163, p. 22-27. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1996, Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 166, p. 31-32. Sumida, S.S., and Berman, D.S., 1993, The pelycosaurian (Amniota:Synapsida) assemblage from the late Pennsylvanian Sangre de Cristo Formation of Central Colorado: Annals of Carnegie Museum, 62(4), p. 293-310. Tweto, 0., and Lovering, T.S. 1977, Geology of the Minturn 15 -Minute Quadrangle, Eagle and Summit counties, Colorado: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 956, 96 p. University of Colorado Museum, unpublished paleontological specimen and locality data. Vaughn, P.P., 1969, Upper Pennsylvanian vertebrates from the Sangre de Cristo Formation of Central Colorado: Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science, no. 164, 28 p. Vaughn, P.P., 1972, More vertebrates, including a new Microsaur, from the upper Pennsylvanian of Central Colorado: Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science, no. 223, 29. Wallace, Steven, 2008, written communication regarding fossil localities in the Maroon Formation and Pleistocene surficial deposits in the Glenwood Springs area. Steven Wallace is CDOT Staff Paleontologist. Glenwood Springs South Bridge EA — Paleontological Resources Technical Report 29 Land Use Summary Residential Units/Lots Size (Acres) Parking Provided Single Family - Estate 16 32 Per County Code Mixed Residential Single Family 77 18.5 Per County Code Duplex/Townhome 154 18.5 Per County Code Total 247 69 Floor Area (sq. ft.) Size (Acres) Parking Provided Commerical 90,000 9 Per County Code Public/Quasi-Public TBD 18 Per County Code Open Space/Common Area TBD 14 Per County Code Total TBD 41 r /illi/11111 ceAter o{3 sect 5 — — 111ZJ1 Proposed Road ExistiAg guCidiwg (to be rewwved) --- ExCstiwqo, site --. Access twad Existiwq Well Sites (to be aUawdowed) ' Existiwg Pev✓se Existiwg vegetatiow Existwg WetLawd +otewtLal sawle Hole Locatiow Mai.w Ewtru .xlstLwg overhead PowerLlwes Veesl wc+Suri.ed Fleytria �uwes ExLstL', Water LLwe Easew,ewt ExistLwg wrigatLow Hitch L FEMA 100 r FLood Levet Proposed eovm.nn.uwit�u Tr&r L ME,Prepased Fishi,wq �n1 Access Easew�e' b Lr EXl,stlw i=ishLwq Access a 0b.L1 *0® nvaiwagePatterw AI Lift statiow st.tRv Ey NOTE: A parcel of La wei located %w the south haLf of 5ectiDw 3.5, TCWwsblp 6, south, Rawe. 89 west of the &th priwcopal wzridiaw, Couwtof Gar veld, state of coLorado 9y Estate Lots ,\.„ e 32 Acres \ik,-;;444, to illl���eAcswtua� -a a Q0.,, Ad"3tcevot c1oLf Couvs't CowLon,wo tau 30' t r5vo& e o ,.S elo ce Ea sevyLeVit, y WestbctOJT T21.i vvovi Fl.111Vi,g No. 1 ASTA N hC- sK.E-rcF-r PLAN MARCH2009 NORTH 0 75 150 gi 1 Cevuter o- Sectle LegewJ E7Lste.9 HLstorla sLte Access Read ExLstLwg Peueldiwg ExlstLwg Gravel 0 ExLstLwg well saes slopes over 10 ExlstLwg vegetatiow LI ExLstCwg FLslnLwg Easemewt _{� ExLst%wa overhead Powe✓llwes ExLstLwg Buried ELectrLc L Lwes awmondinoe Exist%wg waterLLwe Easew�ewt ExLstLwg MrLgateow Ditch L FEMA 100IJ. r Flood Level 4 - PotewtLaL SLwl2 1- 0Le LoctLow D✓a Lwage Patter. Htiiv Lift Stateow Lot 25 Lot 23 L0 P ysAeaL use Perrw�t Area 30' DraCwa e avid ,Service Easev evt, ,p r West65VOAZ i2Awc FL.L.LVUel No. 1 e Ao acevut crol f Cour; Cowiwtuwlt� EA___ST-P=A N K, - LA N1'' AITANI L!T" ANAL` ,s15 MARCH 2009 NORTH 0 75 150 INW Land Use Summary Residential Units/Lots Size (Acres) Parking Provided Single Family - Estate 16 32 Per County Code Mixed Residential Single Family 77 18.5 Per County Code DuplexlTownhome 154 18.5 Per County Code Total 247 69 Floor Area (sq. ft.) Size (Acres) Parking Provided Commerical 90,000 9 Per County Code Public/Quasi-Public TBD _ 18 Per County Code Open Space/Common Area TBD 14 Per County Code Total _ TBD 41 77(////11)1/( (////1111(1f 1 \ \ i \ \\ 2 ` oe, •• 1 4,. ' .7 -All"--,,,,.. : .:07_- 4:i:2113:17,akr-,,WWW,11: 7:7-1-1.2711:1: ,,416._....,1"--.7:111,.. ilirit-- 111,1____! _Iip-Iti.,, __go I IP 7 _ / \N `• ....N 7 �` v - \ '90,, A00L \\\, 1`e' Acres _, \ r \ \ \ 40 , „ r 4110_) \\s„ \, \—"� \ 40te\,i44 ; -_, r I/ 414 -----;'-`, , \,.6 AO, \ \ \ / N: \441 4`\` \ (\, \ \ \ • de Leevi4 Proposeol rzoaol Ex%sti,in,e gu%Lol%w� (to be rewt.oveol) t✓x�stLwo� site Access -2oa o{ Exi,sti,v1,sites (to be abawooweol) �x%st%wo� Fewce ExLst%wc vegetati,ow Existi,we WetLa wo Potev\,ti,a L H-oLe Locati,ow Ma1,w Elnkrt/ lit WI la IA Q r4 Ex%stLwg overkeaol PowerLi,vA,es ExistLwg gt/crieoi ELectrLa Lewes E4stLw9 water L,we t✓ a s e wt,e wt �x�st%w� (rr�o� atLo w i tch FEMA 100 r FL000 Leve L tProposeol Comm/Li/watt/ Prooseo{ F skLvu Access t✓asewt.ew �xLst�w F ski,w Access asewt,ew Erai,wage P LLerw L, ft Statiovi, Trail stA2.vEy NOTE: A -arceL of Lawol Locateol Lw the sot/ctk kaL f of sect%ow 35, TowwskEp sot/ctk, TZawee 2j west of tke Otk riwc1,paL wt,eriAi-aw, Cot/cvttt of c,ar-ReLol, state o'' CoLoraolo r r ,.. 1, n. \ 1 4,885--- 1,24G_ eSl,teV1,tl,a L 1 /37 Acres 1i t \ f S85023'31 1N 'Map •"gs e rejae r I 1 •r. M. I N79751'21" w i • i 30, •rai,vuae avo( eice Easev�n.ev�,-s, west`bwv� a,� tzav�,cn F��Cl,w9 No. 1 Ac{j a cevut c,ot-c course cove wt.0 wi,tt/ I 1 • EA,S TBA N S TC, P LA N MARCH 2009 NORTH 75 150 1101 Bannock street Denver, Cokxedo 80204 P 303.842.1188 300 F 303.842.1185 ww .v.nores-design.cam MER1TAGE OFVFlOPMFNT GROUP JJJJ NOR,R,IS DESIGN Punning Landscape Arch teclure ' 4 iIiii iiiii / 7((///211//f' (�,rfrfiiii - O , / z• , WNW 1 SI Imo"! ■! 1 g-- cis ,ectt,ov 5 itzo 41111 1k4. MC rib{ Mb Mb I I I I o 2Q Leevo. 1=3 N\\\\ �x�stiwcj H �storLa site Access Roaof �xi,st�wc� gu%I,oli,vig Exi,stLIA,g cove!, veL Exi,sti,wc well sites Slopes over &xEstiAA,g vegetati,ow Ex%sti, o,g F%slii,tA,g Easevu.ewt g/D � got 25 sate; o(790 90,„ ledgo�. ExLsti, ,0 overl'ieaol Pow L,l,ms &xi st%vtc -Busied &Lectri,c Lewes Exi,st%vus waterLvue € c sevi.evAt Exi,sti,vl,c frriati,ovl, t tcl� FEMA ioo r FL000l Level, �otewt�a� Si,v�� f-1-oLe Locati,ovl, Drai,volee patterv/ Lift StatiotA, a. S87°5731"W • 11 • S J84$— `~ __ _/ ` III III . N i I 30' *ra1,wGt e avot L$ewi,ce Ravecl%ie�i,Ci,v�,� Nos1bav�,2 Ao f olCev1.t CtoL,-c NN EAST-P;ANK_„- LANI• St/TTA"BIL,rry A MARCH 2009 NORTH 0 75 150 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 909-892.1180 F 303892.1188 300 www.n oras-design.c°m e MERITAGE OIEVEILOPMENT GROUP 1. 1 J J J NOMIS DESIGN Planning 1 Landscape Architecture cc)n - 0 pi)cp3 • (I) N 0 0n 0 1 0 0 a) CD . • • i 22 22 7 11 • / / 5:\ aa ;1/* / 7 Eastbank — Sketch Plan Submittal Mineral Interest Owners Owner Name Owner Mailing Adress Has not been confirmed at the time of this submittal Initial Submittal 1.30.09 HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, STE 1 01 , GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PHONE (970) 945.8676 FAX (970) 945.2555 WWW.HCENG.COM MDG GARFIELD COUNTY, CO EASTBANK VICINITY MAP DRAWN BY: SPG CHECKED BY: SPG DATE: SCALE: 1" = 2000' PROJECT NO: PAGE: 1/26/09 1 FILE: J:/SDSKPROJ/2000/055/VIC MP