Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.25 ImpactAnalysis
IMPACT ANALYSIS RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO OWNER/APPLICANT: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC 7999 HWY 82 CARBONDALE CO 81623 970‐456‐5325 CONSULTANT: 8140 PARTNERS, LLC PO BOX 0426 EAGLE, CO 81631 JANUARY 14, 2011 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 2 IMPACT ANALYSIS RIVER EDGE COLORADO, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 5 A. BASIS .................................................................................................... 5 B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ........................................................ 5 C. REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 5 D. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............... 6 II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................ 23 A. PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................. 23 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 24 III. IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 25 A. ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND LAND USE ................................................ 25 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................. 28 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 33 B. SITE FEATURES .................................................................................... 46 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................. 54 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 58 C. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 65 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................. 66 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 67 D. GEOLOGY AND HAZARDS ..................................................................... 69 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................. 72 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 75 E. WATER SUPPLY AND ADEQUACY OF SUPPLY .......................................... 80 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................. 81 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 83 F. GROUNDWATER SUPPLY AND AQUIFER RECHARGE................................ 83 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ................................................. 83 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 85 G. ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 85 1. FLORA AND FAUNA .................................................................................. 85 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 3 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, HISTORIC RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 99 3. CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT .................................................................. 101 4. POTENTIAL RADIATION HAZARD ........................................................... 104 5. SPILL PREVENTION ................................................................................. 106 H. TRAFFIC ............................................................................................ 107 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ............................................... 108 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................. 116 I. NUISANCE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 117 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ............................................... 118 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................. 118 J. RECLAMATION ................................................................................... 123 1. PROPOSED PLAN.................................................................................... 124 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................. 128 IV. SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES ................................................ 128 A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS .............................................. 129 B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................. 129 V. FISCAL IMPACTS ..................................................................... 130 A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS .............................................. 130 B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................. 132 VI. VISUAL ANALYSIS .................................................................... 133 A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS .............................................. 135 1. REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXT .......................................................... 135 2. EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS: PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS .. 135 3. PROJECT VIEWSHED AND PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDORS ............................ 136 4. PROJECT CHARACTER ............................................................................ 137 B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................. 142 VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 144 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PRE‐APPLICATION MEETING SUMMARY APPENDIX B: VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 4 APPENDIX C: ADJACENT OWNERSHIP, LAND USE AND ZONING APPENDIX D: PART I POLICY FOR MANAGING RAILROAD CROSSINGS RFTA ACCESS CONTROL PLAN AND RAIL CORRIDOR AND TRAILS RULES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX E: RFTA OPEN SPACE EASEMENT APPENDIX F: RFC CONSERVATION EASEMENT APPENDIX G: RFTA COORDINATION LETTER APPENDIX H: RFTA ACCESS LICENSE AGREEMENT APPENDIX I: RFC COORDINATION LETTER APPENDIX J: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY APPENDIX K: WILDLIFE & VEGETATION ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX L: DITCH RELOCATION AGREEMENT APPENDIX M: TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT APPENDIX N: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX O: LETTER CONCERNING CRS 34‐1‐301 ET SEQ APPENDIX P: ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL MINERALS APPENDIX Q: VISUAL ANALYSIS APPENDIX R: ROAD NETWORK APPENDIX S: HP GEOTECH REVIEW LETTER APPENDIX T: WELL LOCATIONS APPENDIX U: RECLAMATION PLAN APPENDIX V: CDOT COORDINATION COMMUNICATIONS Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 5 I. INTRODUCTI ON A. BASIS This Impact Analysis ("Analysis") has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review ("Rezoning") and Subdivision Review ("Preliminary Plan") for the proposed River Edge Colorado ("Project", "REC", "REC PUD", or "development") in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("ULUR"), as amended. This Analysis specifically addresses the requirements of Section 4-502.E of the ULUR. The Analysis includes a number of technical appendices from which the analysis and findings are drawn. In addition, this Analysis is supported by other referenced documents submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications including the River Edge Colorado PUD (Rezoning) and Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package ("Drawing Package"), River Edge Colorado PUD Development Guide ("PUD Guide"), the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for River Edge Colorado (“CCRS”), etcetera. For a complete understanding of this Analysis and its findings, this Analysis should be reviewed in conjunction with the other materials submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications. B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS This Analysis supports the review of the Project. The Analysis is designed to provide Garfield County with an understanding of the potential impacts associated with the Project, as proposed, along with the actions taken in the planning and design process, proposed as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications, or as provided as conditions/restrictions to mitigate the potential impacts where mitigation actions were determined to be appropriate or necessary. Where mitigation is not proposed as part of the Project and impacts are determined to be adverse, an explanation as to reasons for not including mitigation is provided. The scope of this Analysis is limited to the impact analysis components outlined in Section 4-502.E of the ULUR and items identified during the Pre-Application Meeting with Garfield County Building and Planning Department staff on September 24, 2010. A copy of the Pre-Application Meeting Summary is included in Appendix A. The intent of this Analysis is to review the potential impacts of the Project as proposed and disclose any anticipated potential impacts and identify additional or alternative mitigation that may be appropriate to implement as part of the Project. This Analysis is not intended to specifically present or analyze alternatives to the Project. C. REFERENCES As stated in Section I.A of this Analysis, this Analysis relies upon several documents that were submitted concurrently with this Analysis as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications. Several are included as appendices hereto. The REC reports and plans that were relied upon in preparing this Analysis that are not included as Appendices to this Analysis include the following: Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 6 River Edge Colorado PUD Plan, January 14, 2011 (Series PRPN01-02 of the Drawing Package) River Edge Colorado Development Guide ("PUD Guide"), January 14, 2011 Water Supply Plan, January 14, 2011 Raw Water Supply and Distribution Plan, January 14, 2011 Project Engineering Design Report, January 14, 2011 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, January 14, 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan, January 14, 2011 Landscape Plan (Series LA01-03 of the Drawing Package), January 14, 2011 Preliminary Engineering Plans (Series C00-06, DR01-03, S01, B01-02, and SW01-07 along with ES01-05 and CP01 of the Drawing Package), January 14, 2011 D. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The detailed analysis presented in Section III of this Analysis identifies the potential impacts that could result from development of the Project. This Analysis has determined that all of the potential impacts have been or may be reduced to non-adverse impacts with the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project or recommended by this Analysis. Further, this Analysis has determined that the Project is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the ULUR with respect to all the required components of this Analysis as defined by Section 4-502.E (See Table I.D.2 for a summary of the applicable provisions). Variations from or modifications to any of the applicable ULUR standards or provisions necessitated by the Project are discussed in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report. This Analysis has assumed that the variations and modifications requested are a part of the Project under review. Therefore, this Analysis has not evaluated the requested variations and modifications for conformity with the ULUR separately from the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report, but has considered the potential impacts of such variations and modifications. The identified potential impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and post- mitigation impacts for each potential impact are summarized in Table I.D.1 below. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 7 Table 1. Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation Adjacent Properties (Section III.A) RFTA ROW (1) Safety of Rio Grande Trail due to vehicular conflicts at point of access crossing near CR 114/SH- 82 during construction and after development of the REC PUD. A grade separated trail crossing is proposed to eliminate vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle interactions/conflicts. See Series C05.01 of the Drawing Package for details. The construction of the proposed grade-separate trail crossing is proposed as part of pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) (Phase 0) to ensure that conflicts are eliminated as far in advance of construction as reasonably practicable. The grade separated trail crossing is required pursuant to RFTA access easement. The grade-separation has been advanced by CI to ensure protection of recreationists. No adverse impacts (2) Safety of pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail through the Project Site due to potential uncontrolled access to the trail by residents of the REC PUD. The proposed REC PUD design incorporates residential lots backing the open space easement adjacent to the RFTA ROW along most of the length of the trail. Fencing restrictions are proposed for all lots backing the trail to eliminate uncontrolled access to the trail and to separate private space from community space. Vegetative buffer and berming provided in open space easement also restricts or discourages uncontrolled ingress/egress to/from trail. Trail access is proposed at a central location near the Neighborhood Center where speeds are reduced and where access connection to CR 114 is also provided. No adverse impacts (3) Safety issues associated with EVA crossings of trail. Two proposed EVA locations are identified. The crossings will be gated in accordance with RFTA standards and not designed to facilitate access to the trail without RFTA concurrence. No adverse impacts (4) Safety issues associated with potential future rail crossing as access to development The access must be designed to meet the requirements of future rail as a rail crossing pursuant to RFTA and PUC requirements, as applicable. Future rail improvements to crossing are the responsibility of CI/POA if rail is implemented by RFTA along the RFTA ROW. No adverse impacts1 (5) Safety issues associated with potential future resident/rail interactions To protect rail service, the development is obligated under the open space easement to provide landscaping and berming as a protective or mitigation measure along the RFTA ROW to buffer the trail and provide for future rail use. No adverse impacts1 RFC Conservation Easement (See also Flora and Fauna for potential impacts on vegetation, wildlife and habitat) (1) Road and utility crossings of both Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River The RFC Conservation Easement allows for up to two road and unlimited utility crossings over Cattle Creek and up to two utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River. Further the RFC Conservation Easement allows a surface water diversion upstream of Cattle Creek. The Project has been designed with only one road crossing of Cattle Creek and consolidates all utility crossings of Cattle Creek to the location of the road crossing. The number of utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River is undetermined at present, but will conform to the number provided for by the RFC Conservation Easement. These No adverse impacts2 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 8 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation consolidations and reconfigurations limit impacts to the RFC Conservation Easement. Preliminary design information and discussions with the ACOE indicate that the crossings of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River proposed have only temporary environmental impacts and are likely to be subject to a CWA Section 404 Nationwide and not an Section 404 Individual Permit depending on the number of crossings required as discussed in the REC water and wastewater plans and reports. (2) Development adjacent to the conservation easement could impact the conservation values associated with the easement. The REC PUD has included an Open Space and Common Area buffer adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement to help ensure the environmental values are preserved. In addition, the restrictions included in the easement have been applied in landscaping plans as part of the PUD Guide, Landscape Plan and Reclamation Plan, and included on the proposed PUD Plan and in the CCRS. No lots are located immediately adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and all lots are proposed to be separated from the open space area adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement by a break in slope to provide added protection for the RFC Conservation Easement. No adverse impacts (3) Construction activities impact on conservation values during nesting periods and for extended duration of Project buildout. Reclamation of the Project Site is proposed in advance of development activities in order to establish the basic grading to create the vegetative and topographic breaks, resolve hazard mitigation needs, replace soils previously removed from the site, revegetate areas adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement, and institute water quality control measures to be maintained during construction. By taking these actions prior to development, future incursions of constructed-related activities into the open space areas adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement can be avoided. A two-hundred meter construction activity buffer from active heron nests is proposed to be maintained during pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, as well as during development from March 1 to August 1. All proposed homes and structures are located more than 100 feet from the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, well outside the riparian areas. No adverse impacts Other Adjacent Properties(See also Visual Impacts for potential impacts on views) (1) Potential impacts to use of agricultural properties immediately adjacent to the north and east. The County has a right-to-farm policy contained within the ULUR that is consistent with C.R.S. 35-3.5-101, et seq. The right-to farm framework should be included in the CCRS. Irrigation easements are provided to the Glenwood Ditch to provide continued irrigation water access and delivery to other users. The Glenwood Ditch will be relocated in accordance with the Relocation Agreement recorded in Book 1292 at Page 61, as it may be amended, which if followed preserves the flows to downstream users. Animal restrictions proposed in the PUD Guide and CCRS ensure that animals are controlled to the No adverse impacts Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 9 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation maximum extent practicable. (2) Potential impacts to use of adjacent residential uses. All residential properties are several hundred feet away from the Project and most are more than 1000 feet away and buffered by open space or conservation easements. The scale of residential uses and buildings proposed within the Project is fully consistent with nearby residential uses. No potential impacts have been identified. No adverse impacts (3) Potential impacts to use of adjacent commercial uses. All commercial properties are several hundred feet away from the Project and most are more than 1000 feet away and buffered by intervening uses or vacant land. The scale of residential uses and buildings proposed within the Project is fully consistent with nearby commercial uses. No potential impacts have been identified. No adverse impacts (4) Potential impacts to CDOT ROW CDOT controls SH-82 which parallels the Project Site to the east and provided access. The Project will take access via an access point and access design meeting CDOT requirements. The highway is buffered by the RFTA ROW, 50 foot open space buffer at least 50 feet of unused right-of-way at its narrowest point. Individual lots and properties cannot take access to the highway. No adverse impacts Site Features (Section III.B) (1) Potential impacts to rivers, creeks and flooding from development activities Rivers, wetlands and floodplains are generally all located off the Project Site except small areas of floodplains. These resources are substantially buffered by Community Spaces (Tracts) from development activity. No home is located closer than 100 feet from these resources. Drainage systems are designed to ensure that discharges to these systems meet stormwater discharge standards. A bridge and utility crossing Cattle Creek and potentially crossing the Roaring Fork River are the only encroachments into these areas. Temporary impacts are limited and specifically controlled by the Garfield County floodplain regulations. No adverse impacts (2) Potential impacts to lakes and wetlands from development activities No lakes exist on the Project Site although pond areas were previously excavated by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. All wetlands and waterbodies are located within the RFC Conservation Area or undevelopable community space area. No structures are located within 35 feet of any wetland or waterbody except the vehicular/pedestrian bridge over Cattle Creek. Only temporary impacts to wetlands associated with utility crossings are proposed. All wetlands will be fully restored following construction of these utility crossings in accordance with ACOE and CWA requirements. No adverse impacts2 (3) Potential impacts to groundwater from development activities The groundwater is alluvial in the vicinity and at substantial depth. The area is not a recharge area and no groundwater will be used by the Project from the site, no discharges to groundwater are proposed, irrigation is controlled through limited application rates, and infiltration of stormwater is controlled through lined ditches and ponds. No underground No adverse impacts Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 10 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation storage tanks are proposed and spill control measures will be maintained during construction. (4) Potential impacts to topography from development activities The Project Site has been regraded in association with a previous Project. The only natural slopes that currently exist are steep escarpments along the western edge of the Project Site which are degraded from years of agricultural flood irrigation practices. These slopes will be mitigated and stabilized during pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) if approved by the RFC. All other slopes are manmade and will be regraded and reclaimed as part of the reclamation effort. Slopes will be located along the edge of the development area to protect the RFC Conservation Easement and open space areas. No development is proposed on steep slopes. The natural topography has been highly modified due to past grading activities. CI proposes to regrade the site and replace certain terrace features and stabilize steep terrace escarpments along the western edge. No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation and stabilization efforts. (5) Potential impacts to vegetative cover from development activities The vegetative cover on the Project Site is significantly degraded. The regrading and replacement of soil cover as part of reclamation will establish a canvas for revegetation efforts. A comprehensive revegetation strategy including noxious weed abatement is proposed as part of the Reclamation Plan and PUD guide. The revegetation strategy is focused on native and naturalized vegetation within open spaces. No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation and revegetation efforts. (6) Potential impacts to climate from development activities No specific climatic impacts are anticipated from the Project. Local climate has been considered in developing appropriate revegetation strategies. No adverse impacts. Soil Features (Section III.C) (1) Impact of soils on Project design and development Bearing conditions will vary across the Project Site. However, in general, shallow foundations placed on the upper natural soils should provide suitable support for structures. Relatively rigid foundations such as heavily reinforced slabs could be used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and building distress, where determined necessary. Soils conditions and, in particular, those conditions impacted by subsurface geologic hazards should be carefully considered and monitored and appropriate actions taken. A detailed mitigation plan has been prepared to ensure structures and infrastructure are properly protected (See Hazard Mitigation Plan). Conditions are generally consistent with other sites in the region and limited special considerations are required. Special consideration will be provided with respect to previous filled areas of the Project Site to be sure fills are compacted to support foundations. No adverse impacts. (2) Potential impacts to soils and erosion potential Soils are not considered highly erodible, however areas of the Project Site are experiencing erosion and degradation and slope stability problems. The Reclamation Plan provides a program to stabilize these areas along the western No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation, revegetation, and stabilization efforts. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 11 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation edge for the Project Site and provide better vegetative cover across the Project Site to protect soils from erosion. Geology and Hazards (Section III.D) (1) Potential impacts from sinkholes on structures and infrastructure HP Geotech notes that the near surface formation rock in the area is the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The evaporite is subject to dissolution if subject to groundwater resulting in the collapse of overlying surficial deposits. If still active, present deformations are likely occurring at rates similar to past long-term rates of between 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. HP Geotech concludes that these slow deformation rates should not present a substantial potential risk to buildings and other facilities being considered at the Project Site and that areas impacted are generally less than 50 feet in diameter. Sinkhole areas are generally avoided except in small areas where utilities and roads cross them. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies a detailed plan for addressing sinkholes and the PUD Guide provides restrictions concerning developed and implementation of mitigation measures to protect structures and other facilities. Mitigation measures include structural bridging and specialized rigid foundations. No adverse impacts. (2) Potential deformation impacts from piping in steep terrace escarpments Steep terrace escarpments run along portions of the western edge of the development. All areas impacted have been avoided by development. These areas are located within Open Space Tracts and not subject to development. The Reclamation Plan proposes, with approval by RFC, to stabilize these slopes to prevent further deformation and impacts to the Project Site open space, RFC Conservation Easement and Roaring Fork River. No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation, revegetation, and stabilization efforts. (3) Potential erosion and steep escarpment destabilization from active bank erosion All areas impacted have been avoided by development. The steep terrace escarpments run along portions of the western edge of the development. In some cases, these areas are being undercut by active bank erosion. The Reclamation Plan proposes, with approval by RFC, to stabilize these areas to prevent further erosion and impacts to the Project Site open space, RFC Conservation Easement and Roaring Fork River. No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation, revegetation, and stabilization efforts. (4) Potential impacts to structures associated with debris flows HP Geotech noted that coalescing alluvial fans along the upper portions of the Project Site near SH-82. Before construction of SH-82 and development to the east of the highway, the alluvial fan formed a continuous apron at the terrace- valley transition. Most of the upper parts of the fans have been removed by grading for these facilities and the debris flow potential reduced. With the exception of the Executive Lot in the southern part of the Project, development is not being proposed on the alluvial fans. PUD restrictions requiring assessment and mitigation on the Executive Lot are proposed. No adverse impacts. (5) Potential impact to structures from earthquakes The closest geologically young faults considered capable of generating large earthquakes are located in the Rio No adverse impacts. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 12 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation Grande rift to the between 62 and 67 miles east of the Project Site. HP again concludes that at these distances large earthquakes should not produce strong ground shaking at the Project Site. HP concludes that earthquake risk is consistent with other areas of the Roaring Fork Valley. (6) Potential impact to structures from flooding All structures and development areas, except the utility crossing and vehicular/pedestrian bridge on Cattle Creek and utility crossings of the Roaring Fork, are located outside of the floodplain. The utility crossings and bridge will be protected from damage from flood and meet the requirements of the Garfield County floodplain regulations. No adverse impacts. (7) Potential impact to structures from wildfire The Project Site is located within a low hazard fire hazard zone as depicted on Garfield County Wildfire Hazard maps. The Project will be served by fire flows. No adverse impacts. Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply (Section III.E) (1) Adequacy of potable water supply As documented in the Resources Engineering Report, the legal water supply for the potable water system is based on the water court decrees in Case No. 01CW187, 07CW164 (pending) and 08CW198 (pending). In Case No. 01CW187, a legal water supply for 349.55 EQR's and 3 acres of irrigation was adjudicated. The pending decree in Case No. 07CW164 provides for an additional 850.45 EQR's and 4 acres of irrigation. An adequate water supply is available as documented in the Water Supply Plan and Water Treatment and Distribution Report. No adverse impacts. (2) Adequate irrigation water and supply system to meet landscaping demand The Glenwood Ditch is decreed for 50 cfs (approximately 12 cfs is owned by CI) for irrigation uses and Staton Ditch is decreed for 5.18 cfs (approximately 4 cfs is owned by CI) for irrigation uses. The water court Case No. W-2206 for the Unocal Sanders Ranch determined that the historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which the Project Site represents approximately 150 acres of the total irrigated areas. The Raw Water Supply and Distribution Plan documents the ability to deliver water to lots and tracts within the Project. No adverse impacts. Groundwater Supply and Aquifer Recharge (Section III.F) (1) Potential impacts to groundwater supply and quality The groundwater is alluvial in the vicinity and at substantial depth. The area is not a recharge area and no groundwater will be used by the Project from the site, no discharges to groundwater are proposed, irrigation is controlled through limited application rates, and infiltration of stormwater is controlled through lined ditches and ponds. No underground storage tanks are proposed and spill control measures will be maintained during construction. No adverse impacts. Environment (Section III.G) (1) Potential impacts to flora and fauna associated with impacts to general wildlife habitat The Upland Habitats are highly damaged from over 80 years of agricultural use and grading for the Bair Chase project in 2005. Habitat at the Project Site is highly degraded. Soils have been stripped from a majority of the Project Site and noxious weeds are abundant. Open Space Tracts No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation, revegetation, and stabilization efforts to portions of the property. Noxious weed control immediately adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement will provide Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 13 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation will be reclaimed using local native plant materials, initially focusing on grasses and some sagebrush recruitment. An aggressive noxious weed abatement program will also be implemented. The overall increase in viable wildlife habitat, the enhancements to the RFC Conservation Easement provided by the naturalized open space buffer and early and complete reclamation measures undertaken in association with the Project result in beneficial effects benefit to conservation values and habitat. (2) Potential impacts to wildlife associated with human activity within the development Human activity adjacent to wildlife areas will have stress effects on wildlife. Wildlife particularly mule deer and elk are likely to limit their loafing use of the Project Site due to human activity. Use may be limited to nighttime use. The Project Site is not critical habitat for mule deer or elk. The PUD Guide, CCRS and other Project documents provide for control of pets, limitations on fences to allow passage, buffer plantings along the edges of the development area, limitations on lighting, trail closures, noxious weed controls, garbage and composting controls, and fencing for garden and orchard areas. As a result of the mitigation measures employed at the Project, limited impacts to individual mule deer and elk are expected. However, mule deer use of habitats within open space areas and the RFC Conservation Easement will continue and even possibly expand with the proposed habitat restoration and proposed access controls, but will most likely be mostly at night. Elk loafing is likely to continue on the site although in more limited open space areas. Forage on the site is currently poor and no substantial feed benefit is provided at the Project Site Insignificant adverse impacts. (3) Potential habitat impacts associated with utility and bridge crossing of Cattle Creek. The Cattle Creek utility crossing is proposed to be located in coordination with the bridge crossing serving the southern portion of the REC. Several utilities will be collocated. An open cut will be utilized to cross Cattle Creek. A CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit will be required to undertake the crossing. Cattle Creek is damaged along its length through the Project Site. The environmental damage to wetlands associated with the utility cut will be temporary. Wetlands will be restored in accordance with Federal law. The crossing conforms to RFC Conservation Easement limitations and will be coordinated with RFC. Insignificant adverse impacts (4) Potential habitat impacts associated with utility crossing of Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River utility crossings, if required will be subject to a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit. An open cut will be utilized to cross the Roaring Fork River and if multiple utility crossings are required, utilities will be consolidated. The crossing conforms to RFC Conservation Easement limitations and will be coordinated with RFC. The environmental damage to wetlands associated with the utility cut will be temporary. Wetlands will be restored in accordance with Federal law. The Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses Insignificant adverse impacts Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 14 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was identified in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The REC property does not have any orchid populations. Seeds will be collected if areas are to be disturbed and reseeded upon completion of construction activities. (5) Potential effects to archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources from development. There are no recorded sites inside the Project Site, or in the immediate vicinity. A majority of the Project Site was used for agricultural purposes for nearly 80 years and was regraded in 2005. As such, any resources that may have been present are likely to have been removed or significantly damaged beyond repair as part of these activities. No adverse impacts. (6) Impacts to critical wildlife habitat and heron rookery from Project development. No critical wildlife habitat exists on the Project Site. The heron utilize a rookery adjacent to the Project Site and bald eagles utilize nesting trees further to the south and have been seen on the Project Site. A buffer screen between the development and the rookery, construction restrictions within 200 meters of the rookery in the spring and early summer, and trail closures within open space are proposed to limit potential impacts. This conforms with the REC RFC Conservation Easement protocols Insignificant adverse impacts. (7) Impacts to the Project from radiation The moderate radon potential zone located in the interior part of the province, within which the Project Site is located, is underlain primarily by sedimentary rocks, including sandstone, limestone, and shale, which have a low aeroradiometric signature. No adverse impacts. (8) Impacts to the environment from spills associated with the development No uses are proposed which have significant spill related issues. During construction, spill protection measures are proposed as part of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. No adverse impacts. Traffic (Section III.H) (1) Impacts to SH-82 and County Roads County roads are not accessed as part of the development. Access is proposed from SH-82 which has been preliminarily analyzed. Access and highway performance is projected to meet CDOT standards and requirements. A Tier III Study will be completed to secure access and create a final intersection configuration and establish required improvements. Phased access improvements may be required and a signal may be warranted at Project buildout. All parameters conform to CDOT standards and will be managed by CDOT to eliminate any adverse impacts at CI’s expense. No adverse impacts. (2) Performance of internal network to support development densities All roads within the development are anticipated to operate at level C or better at all times, including intersections, based on the capacity of the proposed road as and projected traffic volumes. Fire access is provided via the main road and two proposed EVAs meeting fire department requirements. No adverse impacts. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 15 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation Nuisance Conditions (Section III.I) (1) Noise and dust impacts during construction to trail users on RFTA ROW Construction activities associated with the Project's development could impose some undesirable effects on Rio Grande trail users during the construction period. Noise and dust could make use of the trail less attractive during certain construction periods. Dust controls meeting State and Federal air quality control standards will be in place. Noise will meet State noise standards. Landscaping and berming required in the RFTA Open Space Easement will be placed during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) such that post reclamation development activities will have a less noticeable effect on recreationists. Highway noise and fumes already have some impacts to trail users in this location. Insignificant adverse impacts. (2) Potential noise and impacts during construction to adjacent residential uses Residential uses are located at substantial distance from the Project Site. Activities at the Project Site will be noticed but well under State and Federal thresholds required for dust and noise. Distances and existing vegetative screening will provide additional mitigation. Intensive construction activities are limited to pre-development reclamation (Phase 0). No adverse impacts. (3) Potential noise and impacts during construction to adjacent commercial uses Commercial uses are located at substantial distance from the Project Site. Activities at the Project Site will be noticed but well under State and Federal thresholds required for dust and noise. Distances and existing vegetative screening will provide additional mitigation. Intensive construction activities are limited to pre-development reclamation (Phase 0). No adverse impacts. (4) Residential impacts associated with noise and fume issues associated with SH-82 While highway noise may be apparent to residents of the REC, based on projected highway traffic conditions noise levels are unlikely to exceed levels considered significant by FHWA standards. The proposed buffers between the edge of highway and residential uses, separation distance, and topography all benefit the Project by reducing the potential noise reaching the Project Site. Insignificant adverse impacts (5) Residential noise and vibration issues associated with future potential rail activities In most cases, residential development backs the RFTA ROW and associated RFTA Open Space Easement. The buffer between potential future rail and development is approximately 60-75 feet. Adequate space is available to provide limited vegetative and sound barriers. The spacing is consistent with spacing of residential structures along other segments of the RFTA ROW. Train technologies if implemented will have to address the close proximity of residential uses throughout the corridor. The proposed development does not pose any unusual constraints. Mitigation measures have been previously agreed to with RFTA via license agreements and easements. Insignificant adverse impacts Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 16 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation (6) Residential impacts associated with noise and fume issues associated with nearby industrial uses Industrial uses are located at substantial distance from the Project Site. Similar to other residential development in the area, industrial activities near the Project Site could be noticed by residents but noise and dust will be well under State and Federal thresholds. Distances and existing vegetative screening will provide additional mitigation. No adverse impacts (7) Residential impacts associated with noise and fume issues associated with proposed internal industrial uses Industrial uses on the Project Site are located away from residential uses and required to meet landscaping and nuisance controls in the PUD Guide, CCRS, and Design Guidelines which would eliminate or mitigate and effect. No adverse impacts Reclamation (Section III.J) (1) Potential vegetation and soils impacts associated with Project construction and site development The Project Site is highly damage. Reclamation activities are proposed prior to development to place the site into a condition that makes it ready for development and fully restores key open space and habitat areas. Reclamation is also included in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and PUD Guide to ensure development and post- development actions resulting in the exposure of soils are remedied in accordance with acceptable standards. No adverse impacts. Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of reclamation, revegetation, and stabilization efforts to portions of the property. Sand and Gravel Resources (Section V) (1) Potential impact of development on the availability of sand and gravel resources Garfield County's population is below the threshold for when these specific statutory provisions apply. The statute specifically states in CRS 34-1-301(2) states unequivocally that the statutory requirements "shall have no application outside such populous counties". Materials at the Project Site are generally considered suitable for use as interior and exterior backfill, but are considered to be an uneconomical industrial resource due to the current zoning of the property, developing residential and commercial uses surrounding the property, natural resources values associated with RFC Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River, the proximity to and dissection of the site by the RFTA ROW which is used as a part of the Rio Grande recreational trail and preserved by the RFTA and Public Utilities Commission as a rail corridor, and the potential presence of groundwater No adverse impacts Fiscal Impacts (Section V) (1) Potential fiscal impacts to Garfield County Services Comparing the fiscal impact of River Edge to 365 units of existing development, using average home prices and household size, the annual net fiscal impact to Garfield County finances is $242,000 less, or on a unit basis, $663 per unit less impactful to Garfield County than the average existing residential development in the County. No mitigation is recommended. Based on the above, the fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generate an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000, compared to the - $26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for REC. No adverse impacts Visual Impacts (Section VI) (1) Potential impacts to view shed from public rights- of-way The concept sketches indicate that, although the Project would be visible in the lower foreground as viewed from SH- No adverse impacts Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 17 Potential Impact Description and Mitigation Measures Impact After Mitigation 82, the development would lie on the valley floor considerably below the skyline defined by the ridge and backdrop of hillsides and mountains, thereby protecting these views and vistas. (2) Potential impacts to view shed from adjacent properties The Project Site is within the margin of the viewshed when viewed from CR-109 and Ironbridge. However, due to the distances involved, the structures on the Project Site cannot obstruct views of the hills and mountains to the east of the Project Site. While the development is visible, the scale is small compared not only with the hillsides and mountains in the background, but also with foreground features. By the time the landscaping reaches 15 years of growth, it will further enable screening of the Project Site. No adverse impacts (3) Potential impact to regional character and image The design direction for the character and scale of the residential architecture is in keeping with the adjacent and neighboring communities. The character proposed is traditional and functional in nature, with sensitive scale and massing sympathetic to the built and natural environment that surrounds it. Furthermore, the overall scale of the Project is minor when compared with the mass of the mountainous backdrop. Factoring in the 15-year landscaping scenario, most of the vertical construction of the development will be visually softened and screened by the trees proposed as part of the Landscape Plan. No adverse impacts Notes: 1 This is a future potential effect. Rail is not currently proposed although corridor is protected as rail corridor. Similar im pacts as might occur in association with this Project would occur throughout the Roaring Fork Valley if rail service were to be established. The timeframe for such a program is unknown and speculative at best given the financial cost of providing service and RFTA’s focus on BRT. The Project presents no more practical difficulty or adverse impacts to the implementation of rail service than existing uses within the Roaring Fork Valley located along the RFTA ROW. 2 Impacts are primarily temporary impacts that occur during construction or repair activities. Restoration to predevelopment conditions generally occurs following the activity. Impacts are allowed for and anticipated by the RFC Conservation Easement. Permanent utility service roads have limited effect and result in a permanent loss of habitat within the RFC Conservation Easement which impacts were anticipated by the RFC Conservation Easement. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 18 Table I.D.2. Conformance with ULUR Standards of Review. Standard of Review Summary of Findings Conformance with Standard Adjacent Properties (Section II.A) (1) Section 6-202 B. Relationship to Surrounding Area. The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property. The Project is compatible with the nature, scale and intensity of adjacent and nearby land uses including the adjacent right-of-way and conservation uses, and to have no adverse impacts on adjacent uses. The Project is surrounded by a mixture of moderate density development, two-three stories in scale. The uses in the area are generally mixed from commercial and industrial uses to residential, with some small remaining pockets of agricultural uses. Conservation uses also exist which are buffer by naturalized open space areas within the Project. All uses immediately adjacent to and within close proximity to the Project are unaffected or preserved in association with the Project. No adverse impacts to adjacent or nearby uses are anticipated. Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-103 Compatibility. The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land. The Project is compatible with the nature, scale and intensity of adjacent and nearby land uses including the adjacent right-of-way and conservation uses, and to have no adverse impacts on adjacent uses. The Project is surrounded by a mixture of moderate density development, two-three stories in scale. The uses in the area are generally mixed from commercial and industrial uses to residential, with some small remaining pockets of agricultural uses. Conservation uses also exist which are buffer by naturalized open space areas within the Project. All uses immediately adjacent to and within close proximity to the Project are unaffected or preserved in association with the Project. No adverse impacts to adjacent or nearby uses are anticipated. Fully Conforms (3) Section 1-401 Agricultural activities and operations within the County shall not be considered to be nuisances. Colorado is a “Right to Farm State” pursuant to C.R.S. 35- 3.5-101, et seq. The Project CCRS recognize the right-to- farm in accordance with the ULUR. Fully Conforms (4) Section 1-402 Rights and Responsibilities of All Landowners. All owners of land, regardless of use, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to maintenance of fences. Irrigators have the right to maintain irrigation ditches through established easements that transport water for their use, and said irrigation ditches are not to be used for the dumping of refuse. Landowners are responsible for controlling weeds, keeping pets under control, and other aspects of using and maintaining property in accordance with County regulations. The Project includes provisions that provide for the maintenance of fences, access to irrigation, and the control of weeds, pets and other requirements for maintaining property. Fully Conforms (5) Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands. No adverse effects to agricultural operations. The Project includes provisions that provide for the maintenance of fences, access to irrigation, and the control of weeds, pets and other requirements for maintaining property. Fully Conforms Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 19 Standard of Review Summary of Findings Conformance with Standard Site Features (Section II.B) (1) Section 7-102.H Slope Development. Provides for the avoidance of development of steep slopes. The Project Site has been regraded in association with a previous Project. The only natural slopes that currently exist are steep escarpments along the western edge of the Project Site which are degraded from years of agricultural practices. These slopes will be mitigated and stabilized during Reclamation if approved by the RFC. All other slopes are manmade and will be regraded and reclaimed as part of the reclamation effort. Slopes will be located along the edge of the development area to protect the RFC Conservation Easement and open space areas. No development is proposed on steep slopes. Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-202.C Native Vegetation. Provides for the preservation of native vegetation. The Project Site is fully damaged. Little to no natural vegetation exists within the Project area due to previous agricultural and grading activities. The Project aims to reclaim and preserve approximately 40 acres of the Project Site in native forms of vegetation adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement. Fully Conforms (3) Section 7-203 Wetlands and Waterbodies. Provides for buffer areas and the protection of waterbodies and wetlands. All wetlands and waterbodies are located within the RFC Conservation Area or undevelopable community space area. No structures are located within 35 feet of any wetland or waterbody except the vehicular/pedestrian bridge over Cattle Creek. Only temporary impacts to wetlands associated with utility crossings are proposed. All wetlands will be fully restored following construction of these utility crossings in accordance with ACOE and CWA requirements. Fully Conforms (4) Section 7-303 Site Disturbance. Provides for minimizing site disturbance and excessive alternation of site topography. The Project Site has been regraded in association with a previous Project. The degraded site will be reclaimed prior to development which reclaiming will include regrading to restore positive drainage and create a restored “terrace” break in slope between the future development area and the open space tracts and naturalized and conservation areas within and adjacent to the Project. Site disturbance is generally minimized to that necessary to restore the site and provide the environmental, mitigation necessary to protect the RFC Conservation Easement, and provide naturalized open space buffers. Fully Conforms (5) Section 7-305 Landscaping. Provides for landscaping and vegetative cover in keeping with environmental conditions for protection of the environment, screening, and as community amenity. The Project proposes landscaping meeting the requirements of the RFC Conservation Easements and RFTA Open Space Easements, native vegetation including heron landscape buffers in Open Space Tracts adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and provides detailed landscaping requirements for all community spaces and private residential lots as part of the PUD Guide. Fully Conforms (6) Section 7-701 Floodplain and Flooding. Provides for the protection of development from flood damage and the preservation of flood capacities. The Project is generally located outside areas of flood hazard. The Project has placed all floodplain areas in undevelopable open space and community spaces. One encroachment occurs at the location of the utility and vehicular/pedestrian bridge crossing of Cattle Creek which has no adverse impacts to flood elevation upstream or Fully Conforms Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 20 Standard of Review Summary of Findings Conformance with Standard downstream of the site. In addition, the Project may require utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River which have no adverse impact on flood elevations. Soil Characteristics (Section II.C) (1) Section 4-502.C.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Requirement to provide a plan for erosion and sediment control. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been submitted and conforms to the standard practices of erosion control. Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-102.H Slope Development. Provides for the avoidance of development of steep slopes. Steep slopes are protected in open space areas. No development is proposed on steep slopes. Fully Conforms (3) Section 7-109 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Provided for avoidance and mitigation of hazards. Hazards have been identified and areas subject to hazards avoided where possible. Mitigation measures are proposed to address hazards and general site conditions in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fully Conforms (4) Section 7-202.C Native Vegetation. Provides for the preservation of native vegetation. The Project Site is highly damaged and little natural vegetation exists. The Reclamation Plan includes revegetation plans and noxious weed control measures to ensure the site is protected from erosion. Fully Conforms (5) Section 7-203 Wetlands and Waterbodies. Provides for buffer areas and the protection of waterbodies and wetlands. All waterbodies are buffered by open space and common area tracts. Water quality is protected by appropriate BMPs. Temporary impacts to wetlands occur in relationship to utility crossings under a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit and are restored pursuant to Federal standards and requirements. Fully Conforms (6) Section 7-205 Erosion. Requirement to obtain required CDPHE permit for disturbance. A CDPHE SWMP is proposed to be obtained in accordance with Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) activities and development related activities at the appropriate time. Fully Conforms (7) Section 7-210 Development of Hazard Areas. Provides standards for the development of hazard areas. All hazards are avoided or scheduled for mitigation in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan as part of development or pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) as appropriate. Fully Conforms (8) Section 7-212 Reclamation. Provides for the reclamation of disturbed areas. The Reclamation Plan provides for revegetation meeting the requirements of the ULUR as does development and post-development reclamation in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and PUD Guide. Fully Conforms Geology and Hazards (Section II.D) (1) Section 6-202.I. Fire Hazards. Fire hazards will not be created or increased. No fire hazards are created. Fire flow and all proposed construction including access conforms to the IFC (2003) Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards. The use is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards and will not exacerbate existing natural hazards. A risk is identified by the geotechnical engineering analysis from certain natural hazards which are proposed for mitigation. Mitigation measures, including avoidance, ensure that risks are not exacerbated. Fully Conforms (3) Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards. The development shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate the potential impacts of hazardous site conditions, by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer All hazards are avoided or scheduled for mitigation in accordance with the Hazard Mitigation Plan as part of development of the site or pre-development reclamation (Phase 0), as appropriate. Fully Conforms Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply (Section II.E) (1) Section 6-202.M. Adequate Water Supply. An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in Section 7- 105. The water supply for potable and irrigation water to support development of the Project is legally available and sources are identified and able to provide the required flows. Fully Conforms Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 21 Standard of Review Summary of Findings Conformance with Standard (2) Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply. An adequate water supply plan shall be required for any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, limited impact or major impact review, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction See 1 above Fully Conforms Groundwater Supply and Aquifer Recharge (Section II.F) (1) Section 4-502.E.7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater.. Groundwater is not used by the Project nor is groundwater impacted. The Project has no planned discharges to groundwater and surface water is managed to minimally interact with groundwater. Fully Conforms Environment (Section II.G) Flora and Fauna (Section II.G.1) (1) Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The applicant shall consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife or a qualified wildlife biologist in determining how best to avoid or mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat area. Measures are proposed to deal with potential impacts to wildlife including heron buffering and construction mitigation. No critical or important habitat is impacted. Planned reclamation activities enhance approximately 40 acres of open space for use by wildlife adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and provide a buffer to these areas. Corridors through the property, such as Cattle Creek, are protected and animal and other development restrictions are proposed to eliminate conflicts with wildlife where possible and incorporated into the PUD Guide and CCRS. All measures recommended by the Project Wildlife Biologist have been implemented. Fully Conforms Archaeological, Cultural, Paleontological, Historic Resources (Section II.G.2) (1) Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance. The proposed land use change shall be designed to avoid or mitigate negative impacts upon previously identified archeological, paleontological and historical resources that exist in areas to be affected by the proposed development. No resources are present on the site. Potential adjacent resources are protected from impacts by open space areas. Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-405.C.2. Park Dedication. The following considerations shall be applied in determining which land areas are appropriate for dedication as parks. See 1 above Fully Conforms Critical Wildlife Habitat (Section II.G.3) (1) Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The applicant shall consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife or a qualified wildlife biologist in determining how best to avoid or mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat area. No critical habitat exists on the property. Heron rookeries on adjacent lands are proposed for protection by the implementation of buffer, construction, restrictions, and trail closures as recommended by the Project Wildlife Biologist and in conformance with the RFC Conservation Easement protocols. Fully Conforms Potential Radiation Hazard (Section II.G.4) (1) Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards. The use is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards and will not exacerbate existing natural No radiation hazards exist. Fully Conforms Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 22 Standard of Review Summary of Findings Conformance with Standard hazards. Spill Prevention (Section II.G.5) (1) Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants. The following regulations shall apply to all land use changes, except agricultural activities allowed by right. Spill prevention measures are included in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. No specific uses are proposed that would require significant spill protection measures. Utility facilities must comply with standard spill protocols. Fully Conforms Traffic (Section II.H) (1) Section 6-202.D. Street Circulation System. The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes. The street circulation system provides for efficient movement throughout the development and roadway capacities are more than adequate to support the proposed use. Access to the development conforms to CDOT requirements. Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-108 Access and Roadways. All roads shall be designed to road design standards set forth in Section 7-307 Roads generally meet the County design standards but are proposed as urban sections with parking and landscape areas in keeping with the suburban nature of the development area. Rural sections promoted by the County are inappropriate and conflict with any plan for clustered development. Sections meet standard municipal design standards. Substantially Conforms. Appropriate modifications and variations are requested in the Rezoning and Subdivision Justification Report. (3) Section 7-301.B.4. Roadway System Impacts. Impacts to the County roadway system associated with hauling, truck traffic and equipment use shall be mitigated through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both. No County roads are utilized to service the Project Site. Fully Conforms Nuisance Conditions (Section II.I) (1) Section 7-301 Compatible Design. The design of development associated with the land use change shall be compatible with and enhance the existing character of adjacent uses. Potentials nuisance conditions are limited to periods of construction and fall within State and Federal standards for noise and dust in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Fully Conforms Reclamation (Section II.J) (1) Section 7-212.B Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography The Project Site is highly damage reclamation activities (Phase 0) are proposed prior to development to place the site into a condition that makes it ready for development and fully restores key open space and habitat areas. Reclamation is also included in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and PUD Guide to ensure development and post-development actions resulting in the exposure of soils are remedied in accordance with acceptable standards. Fully Conforms Sand and Gravel (Section IV) (1) C.R.S. 34-1-305(1) states in pertinent part that no board of County commissioners shall by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. Garfield County's population is below the threshold for when these specific statutory provisions apply. The statute specifically states in CRS 34-1-301(2) states unequivocally that the statutory requirements "shall have no application outside such populous counties. These materials at the Project Site are generally considered suitable for use as interior and exterior backfill, but are considered to be an uneconomical industrial resource due to the current zoning of the property, developing residential and commercial uses surrounding the Fully Conforms Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 23 Standard of Review Summary of Findings Conformance with Standard property, natural resources values associated with RFC Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River, the proximity to and dissection of the site by the RFTA ROW which is used as a part of the Rio Grande recreational trail and preserved by the RFTA and Public Utilities Commission as a rail corridor, and the potential presence of groundwater. Fiscal Impacts (Section V) (2) No regulatory criteria. Comprehensive plan, however, requires development to cover the cost associated with its development. Comparing the fiscal impact of River Edge to 365 units of existing development, using average home prices and household size, the annual net fiscal impact to Garfield County finances is $242,000 less, or on a unit basis, $663 per unit less impactful to Garfield County than the average existing residential development in the County. No mitigation is recommended. Based on the above, the fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generate an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000, compared to the - $26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for REC. Fully Conforms Visual Impacts (Section VI) (1) Section 6-202.C Visual Impacts. The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment. The Project preserve views from the surrounding area and is landscaped in a manner to diminish impacts to an insignificant level. Fully Conforms (2) Section 7-301 Compatible Design. The design of development associated with the land use change shall be compatible with and enhance the existing character of adjacent uses. The design is fully compatible and incorporates appropriate architectural and landscaping controls including buffers to mitigate and potential effects. Fully Conforms II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located along State Highway 82 ("SH-82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and Town of Carbondale near the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH-82. The property is located almost entirely west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way and east the Roaring Fork River and the Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC") RFC Conservation Easement. The Project straddles Cattle Creek which is also located within the RFC Conservation Easement. No portion of the Project Site is located within the RFC Conservation Easement. The Project, however, does include a vehicular/pedestrian and utility crossings of Cattle Creek and potential utility crossings and encroachments of the Roaring Fork River, as provided for by the RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix B. The Project covers approximately 160 acres ("Project Site") as shown and described on the Project Site drawing [Exhibits 2(a-d), Appendix B]. The Project Site is owned by Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI"). Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 24 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is a proposal to create a walkable clustered-form of residential development with neighborhood amenities including naturalized open space and enhanced wildlife habitat, community recreation, parks, and neighborhood agriculture that is designed to serve the residents and preserve and provide reference to the rural character and agricultural roots of the Roaring Fork Valley. The Project aims to have a strong historic identity back to the days of ‘old Colorado’ when compact neighborhoods formed with a strong sense of community based on the land and surrounding landscape. The REC landscape aesthetic will be simple, informal, and place emphasis in the use of plant and landscape materials local, adaptable and appropriate to the climate and environment of the area. The Project will include 366 residential units of various sizes and types including 55 affordable homes and one exclusive executive lot for a custom home. Housing types will range from attached homes (i.e., duplex) to small single family attached and detached garden homes, mid-range detached homes, and larger estate homes. Smaller garden homes are anticipated to be designed for younger residents that are looking for their first home in the County, while mid-range detached homes and estate homes will provide move up opportunities for growing families. Densities in the Project are proposed at 2.29 units per acre. Lot sizes will vary from over 1 acre to approximately 5,000 square feet for single family homes, and 1,400 to over 5,000 square feet of lot area for each garden home. Most of the units back to either proposed active parks or reclaimed naturalized open space to help enhance the connection to the land. The architectural theme will be complementary to the traditional architecture of the valley. Generally, exterior materials will include wood, stone, brick, stucco and cement board siding. Varied roof heights and articulation of the front elevations will be used to break up the massing and provide street-level appeal. Front porches and covered stoops are included on homes to emphasize the entry and connection to the sidewalk and street. Roofing will include dimensional shingles, metal, or other materials appropriate to the building style and roofs will generally be pitched. Gables, wall plane and roofline articulation, bays, balconies, porches, canopies and arcades will be used in the design of various buildings. The selection of materials will minimize the exterior maintenance of the homes to help maintain a quality appearance for the long term. The street pattern and pedestrian network are designed to facilitate community interaction. Streets have detached sidewalks with designated cross walks at major intersections and landscaped areas that create a comfortable environment for walking. On‐street parking in most areas will further buffer vehicular and pedestrian uses. Internal circulation is maximized and dead‐end streets are limited. Alleys are used where appropriate to enhance the streetscape and achieve a mix of housing styles. A soft trail system is used to connect open spaces and other common elements with the sidewalk network. The homes are placed close to the streets to help define the streetscape space and provide visual interest to pedestrians. Street trees and plantings are proposed to enhance the aesthetics of the street. The community is served with a variety of recreational facilities and a neighborhood center that could include meeting room(s), fitness room, offices, kitchenette, restrooms, Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 25 recreational facilities, and limited community service use such as a day care facility, deli/coffee shop and health club. Parks will provide informal recreational opportunities within the community and include tot lots, playfields, and trail system. The west portion of the property is generally set aside as the naturalized area that buffers the RFC Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The soft trails around the property allow residents to enjoy the river and wetland areas without disrupting the environment in conformance with the terms of the RFC Conservation Easement. More than the minimum open space and community space requirements will be met by the Project. Nearly 50% of the Project Site is in some form of open space or common area. Finally, productive and edible landscapes, including community gardens and neighborhood orchards are integrated and dispersed in between the residential land uses as gathering and focal places for residents connecting REC to its agricultural heritage. The combination of trails, recreation areas, and open space system with the ability to engage in ‘interactive community agriculture’ on a small scale will make REC a very desirable place to live, filling a unique niche not yet met in Garfield County. This unique combination will help establish a sense of place, foster community, and engage residents with their immediate environment. It is intended this overall outdoor focus will set the tone and become a major driver of the identity of REC. III. IMPACT ANALYSIS This section of the Analysis details the existing and proposed conditions and reviews the Project for potential impacts to the parameters identified in Section 4-502.E of the ULUR. The Analysis is ordered in accordance with Section 4-502.E of the ULUR, but includes three additional components either mandated by Garfield County Building and Planning Department staff or in response to other miscellaneous impact provisions in the ULUR. These components include a Visual Analysis section (Section VI of this Analysis) required by Section 5-502.G of the ULUR and a Sand and Gravel Resources section (Section IV of this Analysis) and Fiscal Impacts section (Section V of this Analysis) requested by staff. A. ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND LAND USE This section provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent and nearby properties as well as the potential impacts of nearby uses on the Project. The general standard of review is provided by Sections 6-202.B and 7-103 of the ULUR which provides that the nature and intensity of the use is compatible with and does not result in adverse impacts to adjacent uses (See Compatibility with Adjacent Uses inset). The Project Site is located on land historically used for agricultural production and is adjacent to agricultural lands. As such, the Project is also subject to review under the provisions of Section 1-401 and 402 which provide the basis for protecting the right of agricultural operations to continue to operate with agricultural use impacts to adjacent properties, and Section 7-201 which provides for limiting potential impacts of development on agricultural activities through the control of dogs and maintenance of access to irrigation waters (See Right-to-Farm Policy and Agricultural Protection insets). Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 26 Based on the following analysis, the Project is found to be compatible with the nature, scale and intensity of adjacent and nearby land uses including the adjacent right-of-way and conservation uses, and to have no adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Therefore, this Analysis finds the Project in conformance with Sections 6-202.B and 7-103 of the ULUR. In addition, the Project, as proposed, is found to have no adverse impacts on agriculture as defined by Sections 1-401, 1-402 and 7-201 of the ULUR, and found to conform to the standards of contained in Section 7-201 the ULUR. All potential impacts associated with the Project through buildout have been or will be reasonably mitigated based on the design, performance standards, and mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. Potentially adverse impacts related to future rail service along the adjacent RFTA ROW ("RFTA ROW") could result if rail service were to be initiated. However, these potential impacts have been mitigated pursuant to RFTA access license agreements and easements in accordance with RFTA standards. No detailed evaluation of potential adverse impacts associated with future rail service and the nature of the mitigation measures provided by the license agreements and easements has been undertaken at this time since such an evaluation would be pure conjecture based on significant and potentially inappropriate assumptions concerning the nature of the rail service that might be initiated. Based on the location of the RFTA ROW within the Roaring Fork Valley and the existing adjacent or nearby uses, the nature of the technology selected will have to address similar conditions elsewhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Project presents no more practical difficulty or adverse impacts to the implementation of rail service than existing uses within the Roaring Fork Valley. General ULUR Standard of Review: Compatibility with Adjacent Uses "Section 6-202 B. Relationship to Surrounding Area. The PUD will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The PUD is compatible with the scale, intensity and type of uses located on adjacent property." "Section 7-103 Compatibility. The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land." General ULUR Standard of Review: Right- to-Farm Policy "Article 1, Division 4 It is the policy of the Board of County Commissioners that ranching, farming, and all manner of agricultural activities and operations throughout Garfield County are integral elements of and necessary for the continued vitality of the County’s history, economy, landscape, lifestyle and culture. Given their importance to the County and the State, agricultural lands and operations are worthy of recognition and protection. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 27 Section 1-401 Agricultural Activities and Operations within the County Shall Not Be Considered To Be Nuisances. Colorado is a “Right to Farm State” pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3.5-101, et seq. Landowners, residents, and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County’s agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy agricultural sector. Those with an urban sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds and smells as inconveniences, eyesores, noises and odors. However, State law and County policy provides that ranching, farming or other agricultural activities and operations within the County shall not be considered to be nuisances so long as they are operated in conformance with the law and in a non-negligent manner. Therefore, all landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to encounter noises, odors, lights, mud, dust, smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of legal and non-negligent agricultural operations. Section 1-402 Rights and Responsibilities of All Landowners. All owners of land, regardless of use, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to maintenance of fences. Irrigators have the right to maintain irrigation ditches through established easements that transport water for their use, and said irrigation ditches are not to be used for the dumping of refuse. Landowners are responsible for controlling weeds, keeping pets under control, and other aspects of using and maintaining property in accordance with County regulations. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and to act as good neighbors and citizens of the County." General ULUR Standard of Review: Agricultural Protection 'Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands. A. No Adverse Affect to Agricultural Operations. Land use changes on lands adjacent to or directly affecting agricultural operations shall not adversely affect, or otherwise limit the viability of existing agricultural operations. Proposed division and development of the land shall minimize the impacts of residential development on agricultural lands and agricultural operations, and maintain the opportunity for agricultural production on the most productive and viable parcels of land.” Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 28 B. Domestic Animal Controls. Dogs and other domestic animals that are not being used to assist with the herding or the care of livestock shall not be permitted to interfere with livestock or the care of livestock on agricultural lands. The County shall require protective covenants or deed restriction as necessary to control domestic animals. C. Fences. Fences shall be constructed to separate the development from adjoining agricultural lands or stock drives as required to protect agricultural lands by any new development. Fences shall be maintained and any breaks in fences shall be at properly maintained metal or wood gates or cattle guards by the development’s homeowners association. D. Roads. Roads shall be located a sufficient distance back from the property boundaries so that normal maintenance of roads, including snow removal, will not damage boundary fences. Dust control shall be required, both during and after construction, to minimize adverse impacts to livestock and crops. E. Irrigation Ditches. 1. Maintenance. Where irrigation ditches cross or adjoin the land proposed to be developed, the developer shall insure that the use of those ditches, including maintenance, can continue uninterrupted. 2. Rights-of-Way. The land use change shall not interfere with the ditch rights- of-way. 3. Maintenance Easement. A maintenance easement of at least twenty-five (25) feet from the edges of the ditch banks shall be preserved and indicated on any final plat for subdivision, or the final development plan for any non-subdivision use. When approved in notarized written form by the ditch owner(s), that distance may be decreased." Potential impacts related to Traffic on SH-82 are discussed in the Traffic section (Section III.H) of this Analysis and the potential visual impacts of the Project are discussed in Visual Analysis section (Section VI). Temporary potential nuisance impacts associated with the Project including those occurring during periods of construction are discussed in the Nuisance section (Section III.I) of this Analysis. 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS a) Adjacent Property Owners A map identifying all the abutting and adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the Project Site excluding rights-of-way, the land subject to the RFC Conservation Easement, and adjacent lands previously owned by CI, but under contract for purchase at the time of this Analysis, recently sol is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix C. Where boundaries lines exceeded the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 29 200 foot limit but seemed to be in conformance with the intent of the adjacent property owner notice provisions (i.e., Section 4-103.F.2 of the ULUR) and in recognition that CI owned the adjacent property to the north and west of Project Site until recently, additional properties were included as adjacent properties if the property met the provisions for notice before CI sold the adjacent lands. A list of owner's names and mailing addresses is also provided as Exhibit 2 in Appendix C. The property boundaries, distances, and ownership information were drawn from the records of the Garfield County Assessor. b) Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning Maps depicting adjacent land uses and adjacent zoning are provided as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 in Appendix C. The adjacent land use and zoning information is drawn from the records of the Garfield County Assessor and Garfield County Geographic Information System ("GIS") and includes all properties within 1500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project Site as required by Section 4-502.E.2 of the ULUR. The Project Site generally abuts fallow agricultural land to the north (land under contract from CI to new buyer) which is flanked to the north by moderate to high density single family residential and commercial uses; right-of-way [i.e., RFTA and Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT")] bounding the Project Site to the east with commercial uses lying immediately to the east and northeast of the rights-of-way and residential uses immediately east of the highway fronting commercial uses; conservation areas lie immediate to the south along the Roaring Fork River which are flanked to the south by agricultural, open space, utility [i.e., Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD") Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP") and industrial (i.e., sand and gravel mining) uses; and conservation areas along the Roaring Fork River bound the Project Site immediate to the west which are flanked further to the west by open space and recreational lands and backed further by moderate density residential uses. Several tracts within the immediate vicinity are vacant and one public land tract (i.e., BLM resource land) is located immediately to the southeast of the Project Site. The surrounding area is generally zoned for residential or commercial development in either conventional zoning districts or as Planned Unit Developments ("PUD" or "PD"). Many of the adjacent parcels zoned PUD/PD are zoned for use as some form of open space or recreational use as part of larger residential developments similar in nature to what is proposed at REC. The adjacent RFC Conservation Easement was originally zoned PUD as part of the previously proposed and approved Sanders Ranch PUD and retained as PUD under a form of open space/conservation use as approved in the original PUD action when the Garfield Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") rezoned the remainder of the Sanders Ranch PUD to Residential Suburban in 2008 pursuant to BoCC Resolution No. 2008-112. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 30 As noted above the immediately adjacent uses include conservation, RFTA recreation trail and rail right-of-way, SH-82, and agricultural uses. These adjacent uses are discussed in detail below along with the residential and commercial uses flanking these uses within 1500 feet of the Project. c) Specific Adjacent Ownership and Nearby Uses (1) RFTA ROW/Rio Grande Trail and Future Rail Corridor The eastern edge of the Project Site abuts the RFTA ROW. The right- of-way is currently used as a component of the regional bike and pedestrian trail network and is a part of the Rio Grande Trail. The RFTA manages the greatest portion of the Rio Grande Trail which runs from Glenwood Springs to Aspen, Colorado. The Rio Grande Trail has 42 miles of continuous multi-use trail and is completely protected from vehicular traffic except at intersections. The Rio Grande Trail is a rails-to-trails project which is built in the Aspen Branch of the historic Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. Train operations in the corridor ceased in phases, between the 1960s and the mid 1990s. In 1997 the right of way corridor was purchased with a combination of funding by local governments, Great Outdoors Colorado, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, and the CDOT. RFTA now manages and maintains the trail corridor, in conjunction with Pitkin County Open Space and the City of Aspen, in their respective jurisdictions (http://www.rfta.com/trails.html). While the right-of-way is being used and maintained, at least temporarily, as a multi-use trail, the right-of-way is preserved and managed by the RFTA and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") as a rail corridor. As such, it is subject to both RFTA and PUC rules and regulations. All public crossings are required to secure approval of the PUC and meet the design and construction standards for rail under Part 7 Rules Regulating Railroads, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and Rail Crossings of 4 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 723-7 administered by the PUC. Private crossings are regulated by RFTA under Part I Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings of the RFTA Access Control Plan (Appendix D) and RFTA's Rail Corridor and Trails Rules and Regulations (Appendix D), in its interim trail condition (Appendix D). RFTA's policies generally require crossings to meet the same design guidance as if they were PUC regulated public crossings. The RFTA has considered providing passenger rail or bus rapid transport ("BRT") along this corridor. While the agency has not abandoned plans for future rail or BRT service along the corridor, RFTA has currently focused their more immediate attention on developing a BRT system that utilizes CDOT Right-of-Way ("CDOT Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 31 ROW") rather than the RFTA right-of way adjacent to the Project Site. The proposed BRT service will utilize the existing 40-mile SH-82 corridor between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. The BRT service would consists of nine stations, seven of which are located at existing RFTA local or express service stops, two new park and ride lots, and the expansion of one existing park and ride lot. Additionally, as part of transit service priority (TSP) elements, queue jump lanes and signal priority for transit buses would be provided at key intersections which may include CR 113 [See Traffic section (Section III.H) of this Analysis for further discussion]. The BRT project emerged as a viable and preferred solution to reduce transit travel times, improve mobility, and enhance transportation capacity in order to reduce congestion on SH-82 in the Roaring Fork Valley (http://www.rftabrt.com/). As such, future alternative rail or BRT use of the RFTA ROW cannot be projected at the present time. The RFTA BRT project, coined "VelociRFTA", is described in detail at http://www.rftabrt.com/. The Project's relationship to transit is discussed further under the Traffic Study section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. The Project Site is subject to an RFTA Easement Grant (Appendix H) with the RFTA for the proposed at-grade right-of-way crossing near CR 113 and SH-82, the preliminary design of which is shown on the Site Access Plans, Series C06 of the Drawing Package. The license agreement calls for the design to be permitted through and approved by RFTA in accordance with RFTA standards or the PUC, if proposed as a public crossing. The license agreement and associated RFTA standards further require that the existing portion of the Rio Grande Trail be relocated and grade separated from the REC entrance road. It should be noted that several other crossing licenses agreements and easements are held by CI as shown on the ALTA Survey (i.e., Series V01 of the Drawing Package). Use of these other licenses agreements and easements is not specifically planned or contemplated by this Project, but would likely be used by future development to the north and east which properties also hold said rights. These additional licenses agreements and easements provide for connection of the properties north and east of the REC road system to connect across the RFTA ROW through the Right-of-Way Tract (See Series PUD01-03 of the Drawing Package) preserved at the north end of the Project to facilitate connectivity in accordance with Garfield County standards (Section 7-307.A.3 of the ULUR). This potential connection is discussed further under the Traffic Study section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. The Easement Grant has established all necessary mitigation measures as determined through negotiations with RFTA. An Open Space Easement held by RFTA exists along the RFTA ROW (Appendix E). The RFTA Open Space Easement specifically limits Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 32 activities within 50 feet of the RFTA ROW, but specifically allows monument signage as proposed on Tract AY (i.e., Parcel C as described in the Open Space Easement). The RFTA Open Space Easement was negotiated to include all necesasry mitigation for the existing trail and potential future rail. (2) Roaring Fork Conservancy RFC Conservation Easement The Project Site immediately abuts the RFC Conservation Easement along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. A copy of the recorded Grant of RFC Conservation Easement ("GCE") is provided in Appendix F along with the map defining the easement boundaries. The GCE restricts the use of the land and activities within the boundaries of the RFC Conservation Easement as provided for under Section 4 of the RFC Conservation Easement as well as placing certain standards and restrictions on activities conducted outside the RFC Conservation Easement as defined in Section 5.3, 5.6, and 5.7 of the GCE to protect the conservation values within the easement area itself. The conservation resources and potential impacts of the Project on the conservation values within the boundaries of the RFC Conservation Easement are discussed under the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of this Impact Analysis. The GCE provides for certain activities associated with development to occur within the RFC Conservation Easement. These activities include up to two road crossings of Cattle Creek (Section 5.4 of the GCE), utility crossings of Cattle Creek (Section 5.5c of the GCE), utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River (Section 5.5a of the GCE), and surface water intake in the Roaring Fork River (Section 5.5a of the GCE). CI representatives met (September 28, 2010 and October 18, 2010) with the RFC representatives, Rick Lofaro and Sharon Clarke, to review and discuss the proposed development activities including the siting of proposed vehicular and utility crossings of the RFC Conservation Easement. Also discussed with the RFC, were potential enhancements to Cattle Creek and edge treatments along the RFC Conservation Easement to limit or discourage entry into the easement and provide for erosion protection and slope stabilization as discussed in the Soil and Reclamation sections (Section III.C and III.J, respectively) of this Analysis. RFC has documented the discussions in a letter to Rockwood Shepard, Project Representative, dated November 8, 2010 (Appendix I). The location of the water intake structure allowed under Section 5.5a of the GCE is not known at this time and will be discussed with the RFC in the future when construction of the facility is determined to be necessary by the RFWSD or CI. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 33 (3) Residential and Commercial Uses The Project Site does not directly abut any residential uses. Separations are provided by the residentially zoned, but agriculturally used or vacant property to the north, SH-82 to the east and the RFC Conservation Easement and open spaces to the south and west that are generally part of residential PUDs. A Rural zoned and agriculturally used property abuts a very small section of the Project Site at the south end. General commercial and employment uses occur across SH-82 to the east and utilize CR 113 for access to SH-82 which is located directly across from the proposed access to the REC PUD and is discussed further in the Traffic Study section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. Residential properties lie north, south, west, and east of the beyond the uses that directly abut the Project. All residential uses are more than 500 feet from the Project and most lie more than 1000 feet from the Project Site. (4) SH-82 The Project Site takes access from SH-82, but does not directly adjoin the highway except for Tract AY which is within the RFTA Open Space Easement, but provides for landscaping and identification signage. Access is provided across the RFTA ROW which abuts the CDOT ROW directly. The highway access and potential impacts on traffic are discussed in the Traffic Study section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section evaluates the potential impacts of the Project on adjacent properties and uses. The general regulatory standard of review is provided by Sections 6-202.B and 7-103 of the ULUR. As detailed in this section, the Project is found to be compatible with the nature, scale and intensity of adjacent and nearby land uses including the adjacent right-of-way and conservation uses, and to have no adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Therefore, this Analysis finds the Project in conformance with Sections 6-202.B and 7-103 of the ULUR. In addition, the Project, as proposed, is found to have no adverse impacts on agriculture as defined by Sections 1-401, 1-402 and 7-201 of the ULUR, and found to conform to the standards contained in Section 7-201 the ULUR. All potential impacts associated with the Project through buildout have been or will be reasonably mitigated based on the design, performance standards, and mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. Potentially adverse impacts related to future rail service along the adjacent RFTA ROW could result if rail service were to be initiated. However, these potential impacts have been mitigated pursuant to RFTA access licenses and grants as well as open space easement grants in accordance with standards acceptable to RFTA. The Project Site lies within an area with a broad mix of uses including commercial and employment activities, residential home sites, sand and gravel Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 34 extraction, recreation and conservation. As such, the Project must be designed and constructed in a manner that provides for and respects the variety of existing uses and draws from and supports certain related uses. a) RFTA ROW/Rio Grande Trail and Future Rail Corridor This section discusses potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent Rio Grande Trail and rail corridor. CI has made coordinated with RFTA concerning the Project and will continue these efforts as the Project progress to ensure all proposed activities meet or exceed RFTA standards. Documentation concerning coordination with RFTA is provided in Appendix G. (1) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Rio Grande Trail The Project proposes an entry road to be constructed across the Rio Grande Trail near CR 113 and SH-82. As previously noted, a license agreement for access to the site at this location was granted by the RFTA [formally the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority ("RFRHA")]. The private access is required to be designed and constructed to RFTA standards. A preliminary design meeting RFTA standards is shown on the Rio Grande Trail Underpass Plan and Section, Series C05 of the Drawing Package. Discussions concerning the access design have been held on multiple occasions, with the latest occurring on October 15, 2010. The RFTA meetings are documented in a letter from the RFTA Planner dated November 11, 2010 and provided in Appendix G. When the license was originally granted, the Rio Grande Trail was not constructed at this location. Since that time the trail has been built and opened for recreational use. Use is significant during some periods, particularly weekends during the summer months. No trail counts are currently available, but observations by 8140 Partners, LLC indicate use by several dozen users per peak hour during peak periods. The heavy use of the trail for recreational purposes and the short distance between the SH-82 intersection and trail crossing and the limited sight distances at this location that would have been associated with an at-grade crossing could have resulted in a potential safety issue to recreationists. As a result, CI and the RFTA have agreed to grade-separate the trail to provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists and eliminate pedestrian/bicycle and car interactions in accordance with RFTA standards and the Easement Grant (Appendix H). A preliminary design meeting RFTA standards is shown on the Rio Grande Trail Underpass Plan and Section, Series C05 of the Drawing Package. The trail would be grade separate as part of pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) as described in the Reclamation Plan section (Section III.J) of this Analysis. Although not specifically Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 35 required at the time of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0), CI has proposed to complete the trail grade-separation as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) to eliminate the potential vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle conflict in advance of Project construction traffic including that associated with reclamation actions. Potential impacts should generally be limited to temporary and minimal access control and safety measures during the construction and rerouting of the trail which will follow standard recreational traffic control and safety standards in accordance with RFTA requirements. Most construction will be completed off-line while construction safety controls are in place along the trail. Trail traffic would be rerouted to the new grade-separate trail once construction is complete (See Reclamation Plan, Appendix U for additional information). In addition to the entry road, two emergency vehicle accesses ("EVA") are proposed to cross the Rio Grande Trail as requested by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District ("CRFPD") at a meeting with Bill Gavette to review the preliminary plan on October 8, 2010. The accesses will be designed in accordance with RFTA's EVA access standards. RFTA does not view these accesses as problematic or creating an unsafe condition for trail users. The EVAs are in conformance with RFTA policies. It is RFTA's general policy that EVAs of this nature, if requested by the local fire authority do not require a license agreement, but will be required to be permitted by RFTA. As stated previously, these accesses will be gated and posted to make clear the use and access restriction. No potential adverse impacts to trail use are anticipated. Potential impacts should generally be limited to temporary and minimal access control and safety measures during the construction of the EVA which will follow standard recreational traffic control and safety standards in accordance with RFTA requirements. Development adjacent to the trail has the potential to impact trail safety as residents may attempt to take access to the trail along its length through the Project at uncontrolled locations. In an attempt to control access to the trail while permitting residents to enjoy the trail amenities, the REC PUD has reduced the ease of access to the trail for residents by placing residential development along nearly the entire length of the corridor. These residential lots backing the trail are proposed to be fenced along the rear property line to both eliminate direct access to the trail by residents and restrict trail users from accessing private property and the development in undesirable locations as provided for in the PUD Guide. In addition, to protect corridor values the development is obligated within the RFTA Open Space Easement (Appendix E) to provide land berms and landscaping adjacent to the corridor as visual and noise buffers for Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 36 trail users and to enhance the values of the corridor. These measures are specifically proposed in the PUD Guide and landscaping standards for the Project. The REC, as planned, includes one access point to the trail where residents will be allowed to access the trail and where riders utilizing CR 113 can connect to the Rio Grande Trail. It is recommended that additional points be developed at strategic locations along the corridor in consultation with the RFTA as the Project develops as a means of facilitating access and eliminating undesirable access at uncontrolled points along the Project boundary. Currently two locations would appear to be viable, both of which are currently designated in the REC PUD as EVAs. However, these locations will be gated and will not be designed to facilitate access to the trail unless approved by the RFTA. These accesses will be posted to make clear the use and access restriction as provided for by the PUD Guide. Through the measures proposed in the REC PUD to limit or restrict access, trail safety should be maintained. No adverse impacts to trail use are anticipated as a result of the trail's contiguity to the development. In addition, no adverse impacts from trail use on the development are anticipated. Potential nuisance effects (e.g., dust and noise) associated with the Project that might be apparent to trail users are discussed under the Nuisance section (Section III.I) of this Analysis. With the measures proposed as part of the REC PUD, the potential impacts on the Rio Grande Trail associated with the Project are not adverse and are in keeping with all RFTA licenses, policies and standards. The RFTA Open Space Easement adjacent to the RFTA ROW has been provided to RFTA as an agreed upon measure to protect right-of-way uses. (2) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Future Rail As previously stated, the Project proposes an entry road be constructed across the RFTA ROW near CR 113 and SH-82. An easement for access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFTA and is included in Appendix H. The access is proposed as a private access. No through traffic is currently provided for by the REC PUD and no public uses are proposed within the REC PUD. As such, no public need exists for access to or through the development, and public ownership and maintenance of the roads within the development is not warranted. Although through access can be achieved in the future if desired as provided for by Tract RD at the northern end of the Project, conversion of the internal road to a public road will require administration of the internal road by a public entity meeting the requirements of Part 7 Rules Regulating Railroads, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and Rail Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 37 Crossings of 4 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 723-7 ("PUC Rules"). The private access is required to be designed and constructed to RFTA standards as a future at-grade crossing. A preliminary design meeting RFTA standards is shown on the Site Access Plans, Series C06 of the Drawing Package. Based on number of trips from the development (See Appendix M Traffic Assessment) and assumptions concerning future rail service consistent with the BRT planning and projections associated with the "VelociRFTA" studies previously cited, the exposure factor, as defined by the PUC Rules, would generally place this crossing above the thresholds for grade-separation per the PUC rules. An at-grade crossing has been proposed at this location since 1999, when the RFRHA executed the easement. While it is true that, if rail service was initiated along the corridor, greater safety concerns would generally be associated with an at-grade crossing than a grade- separated alternative, grade-separated alternatives have been assessed at this location and have been determined to be generally infeasible due to existing grades and alignments, cost and impacts to surrounding properties. As a result of these previous assessments, RFRHA granted an easement for Class II at-grade crossing. Appropriate and adequate mitigation measures were included in the easement and other associated licenses and easements to ensure adequate safety at this location. The plans presented as part of the Rio Grande Trail Underpass Plan and Section (Series C05) and Site Access Plans (Series C06) of the Drawing Package conform to the RFTA and associated PUC standards for design of an at-grade crossing and grade separated trail crossing. Overall, no adverse impacts are anticipated in association with the proposed at-grade crossing of the rail corridor. Safety for rail and vehicular traffic are adequately ensured via the RFTA and PUC design and construction standards for at-grade crossings and the performance and mitigation standards contained in the RFTA Easement Grant (Appendix H). In addition and at present, it should be noted that there are no plans for rail or BRT service utilizing the RFTA ROW. While preservation of the RFTA ROW is imperative to protect it for potential rail service, there are no impacts to rail in the immediate and near term in association with the Project. Finally, development adjacent to the rail corridor can have potential impacts on the development and safety to both rail operations and residents of the development. The development has been designed to provide separation from the rail corridor as defined in the protective RFTA Open Space Easement located along the RFTA ROW (Appendix E). Homes will ultimately be no closer than approximately 60-75 feet from any future rail operations. If rail service is Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 38 implemented, the potential impacts to the adjacent residential properties have been adequately mitigated in accordance with RFTA standards via the RFTA Open Space Easement and the conditions therein. While it may appear to be good planning to avoid such future potential conflicts with rail service by relocating the homes to areas further removed from the RFTA ROW, the potential future impacts of an undefined and currently unplanned and unfunded rail service were weighed against immediate definable potential impacts on the conservation values associated with the RFC Conservation Easement and potential impacts on wildlife and trail use. In any reasonably foreseeable planning horizon, it appears that planning for rail service is less relevant than protecting the RFC Conservation Easement and trail users. Again, it should be noted that the RFTA has focused their attention on pursuing BRT as an alternative to any near-term or midterm implementation of rail service. The comparative conservation values preserved by the REC PUD as an alternative to residential spacing and mitigation for future potential rail service are discussed in the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1.) of this Analysis. Further, rail impacts have been considered and resolved in accordance with the negotiated RFTA Open Space Easement. No detailed evaluation of potential adverse impacts associated with future rail serve and the nature of the mitigation measures provided by the license agreements and easements has been undertaken at this time since such an evaluation would be pure conjecture based on significant and potentially inappropriate assumptions concerning the nature of the rail service that might be initiated. Based on the location of the RFTA ROW within the Roaring Fork Valley and the existing adjacent or nearby uses, the nature of the technology selected will have to address similar conditions elsewhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Project presents no more practical difficulty or adverse impacts to the implementation of rail service than existing uses within the Roaring Fork Valley. b) Roaring Fork Conservancy RFC Conservation Easement This section discusses potential impacts of REC PUD on the adjacent RFC Conservation Easement. Based on the following analysis, the REC PUD is determined to be compatible with and fully supportive of the adjacent RFC Conservation Easement uses and in conformance with Sections 6-202.B and 7-103 of the ULUR. (1) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Road and Utility Crossings of both Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River The GCE allows for up to two road and unlimited utility crossings over Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River pursuant to Sections Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 39 5.4 and 5.5 of the GCE. Further the GCE allows a surface water diversion from the Roaring Fork River under Section 5.5. The Project has been designed with only one road crossing of Cattle Creek and consolidates all utility crossings of Cattle Creek to the location of the proposed road crossing. The need for water and sewer line crossings of the Roaring Fork River is dependent upon the form of potable water delivery and wastewater treatment selected. If the RFWSD determines to provide potable water and sanitary sewer service, as many as two water line crossings and one sewer line crossing of the Roaring Fork River may be necessary. If the RFWSD provides wastewater treatment services by expanding their plant south of the Roaring Fork River, a sewer line will be placed across the Roaring Fork River to connect to the RFWSD WWTP. If the RFWSD chooses to provide potable water service to the REC, one or two water line crossings may also be required. Finally, a water diversion from the Roaring Fork River is required as shown in the Water Supply Plan and Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report if the RFWSD chooses not to provide potable water service (and may also be required as part of the RFWSD system improvements), but neither water line crossing of the Roaring Fork River is required if the RFWSD determines not to serve. The RFWSD may also select alternatively to allow the development to provide a WWTP north of the Roaring Fork River on the Project Site, which would eliminate the sanitary sewer line crossing of the Roaring Fork River. Any crossings of the Roaring Fork River or Cattle Creek and, potentially (i.e., depending on the nature and extent of the final design), the surface water diversion, are subject to a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP Number 12 and 14) from the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) or an Individual Permit, if the nature and extent of the overall impacts meet the CWA criteria. A permit for the sewer and water line crossing was previously granted in 2008 in association with the Cattle Creek Colorado proposal. A meeting with the ACOE onsite, as documented in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K), indicates that the proposed crossings associated with the Project generally conform to the previous permit and may be permitted as a Section 404 Nationwide Permit, as currently designed. Several alternatives are discussed in the Water Supply Plan, Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report, and Sanitary Sewage Treatment and Collection Design Report. The crossing consolidations at Cattle Creek and potential reduction in Roaring Fork River crossings, that could result under the various potable water and sanitary sewage treatment alternatives discussed above, limit potential impacts of the Project to the RFC Conservation Easement to fewer than those allowed under the GCE and mean that all potential impacts are solely temporary except the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 40 development-related traffic across Cattle Creek and necessary access roads in association with utility crossings and water diversion of the Roaring Fork River. The fact that these proposed crossing activities, particularly if minimized, could be subject to a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit instead of requiring a CWA Section 404 Individual Permit indicates that the activities are considered by the ACOE to have only minimal impacts to the environment (see Section III.G.1 for more information). Generally, the potential impacts to the RFC Conservation Easement and associated conservation values, being that such activities are all within the scope of the GCE and, potentially, subject only to a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit, are considered to have no adverse impact. These potential impacts are further discussed in the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of the Analysis. The mitigation of these facilities and any associated impacts is defined under the requirements of the GCE and CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Mitigation outside the requirements of the approvals under the GCE and CWA Section 404 Nationwide or Individual Permit is unnecessary and would provide little to no value. The potential impacts are adequately accounted for by the requirements of the two governing bodies with jurisdiction (i.e., ACOE and RFC). The ACOE jurisdiction and measures are further discussed in Section III.G.1 of this Analysis. The potential impacts to the environmental are discussed under the Flora and Fauna (Section III.G.1) and Critical Wildlife Habitat (Section III.G.3) sections of this Analysis. These sections discuss and define any specific mitigation required with respect to wildlife, vegetation, and habitats including water quality impacts of in-stream activities. It should be noted that Garfield County also has jurisdiction over floodplain activities in association with several of the potential improvements within the RFC Conservation Easement. The floodplain issues are discussed under the Site Features section (Section III.B) and Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis. (2) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Adjacent Development The REC PUD has included a series of Open Space and Community Space Tracts (See Series PUD01-03 in the Drawing Package) adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement to help ensure the conservation values within the RFC Conservation Easement are preserved. In addition, the restrictions in the GCE have been applied in landscaping plans as part of the PUD Guide and Reclamation Plan, and included on the proposed PUD Plan and in the CCRS. No lots are located immediately adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and all lots are generally proposed to be backed by a break in slope Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 41 to provide added protection for wildlife and conservation values. The potential impacts of the Project are further discussed in the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of the Analysis. With respect to the conservation values associated with the RFC Conservation Easement, the Project has no adverse impacts and provides, through the open space buffer areas and pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) actions, substantial benefit to the conservation values. (3) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Heron Nesting Reclamation of the Project Site is proposed in advance of the development activities in order to establish the basic site grading, create the vegetative and topographic breaks associated with the Project's design, resolve hazard mitigation needs, replace soils previously removed from the site, revegetate areas adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement, implement the landscape buffers required by the GCE, and institute water quality control measures to be maintained during Project construction and into perpetuity. If possible, the mitigation and water quality holding pond required to be constructed in association with the Project pursuant to Section 5.3b of the GCE will be located as part of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) in coordination with the RFC. By taking these actions prior to development, future incursions of constructed- related activities into the open space areas adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement can be avoided. By limiting future incursions into the open space areas adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and allowing the reclaimed open space to begin to fully restore itself to pre-development and agricultural conditions, the REC will help to protect water quality and preserve the values associated with the RFC Conservation Easement. These activities will generally be performed during the fall when heron rookeries are not active. A two-hundred meter construction activity buffer from active heron nests is proposed to be maintained during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) activities, as well as during development from March 1 to August 1, as discussed below. The potential impacts of the Project are further discussed in the Flora and Fauna (Section III.G.1) and Critical Wildlife Habitat (Section III.G.3) sections of this Analysis. All proposed homes and structures are located more than 100 feet from the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, well outside the riparian areas. In most cases, substantially greater Roaring Fork River setbacks are provided. The intensive outdoor human activity areas, such as parks, are located internally to the development areas. As a result, the outdoor activity areas are buffered from the naturalized open space areas within the Project and the RFC Conservation Easement. Construction activities are limited on the face of the PUD Plan and in the PUD Guide in areas within 200 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 42 meters of an active heron rookery as recommended in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K). With respect to the heron nesting activities associated with the RFC Conservation Easement and based upon the heron mitigation proposed, the Project has no adverse impacts. The Project, as proposed fully conforms to all heron buffer and landscape requirements contained in the RFC Conservation Easement and is protective of the heron. c) Adjacent Agricultural, Residential and Commercial Land Uses and CDOT ROW This section discusses the conformance of the Project to Article 1, Division 4, and Sections 7-103 and 7-201 of the ULUR. The Analysis has determined that the Project conforms to the requirements of these provisions of the ULUR. Is compatible with these nearby or adjacent uses, and has no adverse impacts on adjacent agricultural residential and commercial uses with the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project or proposed as part of this Analysis. (1) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Agricultural Uses The property located to the north and east of the site is currently fallow fields or agricultural grazing land. Since these areas have generally been stripped of top soil, the land currently has marginal agricultural value and limited agricultural production. Agricultural uses are protected by the Garfield County policies contained in Article 1, Division 4 of the ULUR which are quoted in the Right-to- Farm Policy inset and Section 7-201 of the ULUR which is provided in the Agricultural Protection inset. This land has access to irrigation water from the Glenwood Ditch which is provided for via proposed easements and the proposed raw water delivery system (see Raw Water Supply and Distribution Plan). It is anticipated that the approximately 70 acres of agricultural land adjoining the REC PUD will be developed in residential and commercial uses within the next 10-25 years. The right-of-farm provisions are included in the REC CCRS to help ensure knowledge and protect the right-to-farm the adjacent land. With this inclusion, the no adverse impacts are anticipated on adjacent agricultural uses. In addition to the immediately adjacent agricultural uses, the REC PUD provides for the relocation of the Glenwood Ditch in accordance with the Ditch Relocation, Operation, and Maintenance Agreement recorded in Book 1292 at Page 61 as it may be amended (Appendix L) which could also potentially affect irrigation water delivery to downstream users. Section 7-201.E of the ULUR requires ditches to be maintained if relocated. The relocation agreement provides for no disruption and the continued delivery of flows to downstream users and dedication of necessary easements. No Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 43 adverse impacts to agriculture and other water users are anticipated from relocation of the Glenwood Ditch. Provided the provisions of the relocation agreement are met and ditch relocation is completed offline during the summer and connected to the system when water is not flowing during the winter, no user should notice that a change in the delivery system has occurred. With respect to animals and as required by Section 7-201.B of the ULUR, the REC PUD CCRS and PUD Guide provide animal restrictions to control any potential impact on agricultural uses. As discussed in detail under the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of this Analysis, all outdoor animals are to be maintained in enclosed yards/runs or on a leash at all times when they are outdoors. No fences currently exist but fences will be provided and maintained by CI between the REC PUD property and adjacent agriculturally-used property to the north and east if requested by the adjacent property owner. No fence currently exists along the south boundary between the adjacent agricultural property to the south and the REC PUD boundary due to topography, however agricultural fencing is provided further south on the adjacent property and will be maintained. As with the north and east boundaries, a fence along the southern boundary will be provided and maintained by CI if requested by the adjacent property owner. As a result of these commitments, there should be no impact to adjacent agricultural operations from trespass and the REC PUD is in conformance with Section 7-201.C of the ULUR. All roads are setback adequately from the adjacent property to provide for snow storage and are proposed to be paved. In addition, dust control measures are proposed as part of site development construction standards meeting State and Federal air quality control guidelines. As a result, the REC PUD, in accordance with Section 7- 201.D should have no adverse impacts to livestock or crops. As a result of the Project, approximately 120 acres of agricultural land will come permanently out of production in the Roaring Fork Valley. Production on this land has been effectively minimalized by soil removal and site grading activities completed in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. A majority of the property is without adequate soil cover to produce agricultural crops such as alfalfa and hay as were traditionally produced. Although irrigation and agricultural use continues, limited agricultural production has occurred on the property since at least 2004. It is unlikely that substantial agricultural production could reasonably be expected to occur under current conditions. Raw land and site restoration costs would make it economically infeasible to restore the land to Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 44 productive agricultural use. It is anticipated that the remainder of the original Sanders Ranch PUD, being subject to similar constraints, will not be restored to any form of highly productive agricultural use. Production of hay and other similar crops may be expected to occur as an interim condition following the pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) and prior to development since the economic potential under the REC PUD would provide adequate financial justification for restoration and allow for interim productivity. Interim productivity is expected to be focused on a variety of crops including grass and perennial, shrub and tree stock to support development of the Project, reclamation, and establishment of landscape buffers. In accordance with Section 7-201 of the ULUR, the proposed land use change will not adversely affect, or otherwise limit the viability of existing agricultural operations. Any potential impacts of residential development on agricultural lands and agricultural operations have been minimized. Adjacent agricultural uses are limited or separated from the REC PUD by the RFC Conservation Easement, or other residential or commercial uses. Based on the forgoing, the REC PUD is generally compatible with the adjacent agricultural uses and in conformance with Section 7-103 of the ULUR. (2) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Residential Uses Residential uses are generally located more than 500 feet from the Project boundaries. The proposed use is generally compatible with nearby residential uses which are designed at similar average densities and unit types. In accordance with Section 7-103 of the ULUR, no known potential impacts to adjacent residential properties have been identified. Potential impacts to views are discussed under the Visual Impacts section (Section VI) of this Analysis and potential nuisance effects (e.g., dust and noise) are discussed under the Nuisance section (Section III.I) of this Analysis. The utility uses proposed within the Project are not anticipated to have any potential impacts on adjacent residential uses. The PUD Guide and CCRS requires these facilities to meet detailed performance and screening standards to protect the nearby internal residential uses from potential impacts. As a result of these intensive standards, it is anticipated that the adjacent or nearby residential uses outside the Project Site, at more than 500 feet away from these proposed utility uses, are unlikely to experience any potential impacts. No specific mitigation is proposed or required. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 45 (3) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Commercial and Industrial Uses Commercial and industrial uses are more than 500 feet from any residential use proposed within the Project. In accordance with Section 7-103 of the ULUR, no known potential impacts to adjacent commercial properties have been identified as a result of the significant separations and lower intensity of uses within the Project than is occurring on the nearby commercial and industrial properties. Potential impacts to views are discussed under the Visual Impacts section (Section VI) of this Analysis. In addition, no known potential impacts to the development's proposed residential properties have been identified from adjacent commercial and industrial uses. Potential nuisance effects (e.g., dust and noise) are discussed under the Nuisance section (Section III.I). The proposed use is generally compatible with adjacent commercial and industrial uses as a result of the significant barriers and distance separating these uses from one another. No specific mitigation is proposed except those identified under Section III.H and III.I of this Analysis. Internally to the site, the Project includes three Utility Tracts (i.e., Tract AG, AO, and AR). Detailed design standards are proposed in the PUD Guide and CCRS for these tracts to screen or buffer any utility or maintenance uses. In addition, the standards in the PUD Guide include specific discharge standards for noise and odors. These Utility Tracts should have minimal impact on the surrounding open space and residential uses based on the use standards applied. If adjacent uses see only minimal potential impacts, surrounding or adjacent properties should experience almost no impacts. The Utility Tracts will have no adverse impacts on the use of surrounding lands for the intended purpose or nearby residential uses. (4) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures for CDOT ROW No known potential impacts to adjacent CDOT ROW have been identified except potential impacts related to highway performance, which are discussed under the Traffic Study section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. In accordance with Section 7-103 of the ULUR, no known potential impacts to adjacent CDOT ROW have been identified except potential nuisance effects (e.g., dust and noise) which are discussed under the Nuisance section (Section III.I) of this Analysis. No specific mitigation is proposed except those identified under Section III.H and III.I of this Analysis. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 46 B. SITE FEATURES This section describes the site features and adjacent offsite features that could potentially affect the development of the REC or result in potential impacts to important site features. The site features and potential impacts associated with site features that are specifically discussed under other sections of this Analysis are not detailed in this section, but rather in the specific section of this Analysis dedicated to those features. The site features addressed by this section include the site characteristics identified by Section 4-502.E.3 of the ULUR. This section of the Analysis includes a discussion of the History and Human Impacts to the Project Site that result in special considerations, and provide a framework for consideration of potential impacts to other site features. The Project Site is highly disturbed. Therefore, this Analysis generally considers the existing condition and not Project Site conditions that existed prior to recent disturbance when the Project Site was under more intensive agricultural use than it is today. There are several sections of the ULUR that establish the framework for review and analysis of the potential impacts of the Project. The sections of the ULUR which were considered in evaluation for the potential impacts and are provided in the insets below include (Note: The ULUR sections are listed in order of the site features reviewed pursuant to Section 4-502.E.3 of the ULUR): Section 7-203 Wetlands and Waterbodies. Provides for buffer areas and the protection of waterbodies and wetlands. Section 7-701 Floodplain and Flooding. Provides for the protection of development from flood damage and the preservation of flood capacities. Section 7-102.H Slope Development. Provides for the avoidance of development of steep slopes. Section 7-303 Site Disturbance. Provides for minimizing site disturbance and excessive alternation of site topography. Section 7-202.C Native Vegetation. Provides for the preservation of native vegetation. Section 7-305 Landscaping. Provides for landscaping and vegetative cover in keeping with environmental conditions for protection of the environment, screening, and as community amenity. General ULUR Standard of Review: Wetlands and Waterbodies "Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies. A. Restrictive Inner Buffer. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 47 1. Minimum Setback. A setback of thirty-five (35) feet measured horizontally from the typical and ordinary high water on each side of a waterbody is required. 2. Structures Permitted In Setback. Irrigation and water diversion facilities, flood control structures, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structures requiring some disturbance within this setback may be permitted. 3. Structures and Activity Prohibited in Buffer Zone. Unless otherwise permitted or approved, the following activities and development shall be prohibited in the restrictive inner buffer zone include: a. Placement of material, including without limitation any soil, sand, gravel, mineral, aggregate, organic material, or snow plowed from roadways and parking areas. b. Construction, installation, or placement of any obstruction or the erection of a building or structure. c. Removal, excavation, or dredging of solid material, including without limitation any soil, sand, gravel, mineral, aggregate, or organic material. d. Removal of any existing live vegetation or conducting any activity which will cause any loss of vegetation, unless it involves the approved removal of noxious weeds, non-native species, dead or diseased trees. e. Lowering of the water level or water table by any means, including draining, ditching, trenching, impounding, pumping or comparable means. f. Disturbance of existing natural surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or flood retention characteristics by any means including without limitation grading and alteration of existing topography. Measures taken to restore existing topography to improve drainage, flow patterns and flood control must be approved." General ULUR Standard of Review: Floodplain and Flooding "Section 7-701 Standards Within Floodplain Overlay. The following standards shall apply to all land use changes within the floodplain overlay, including division of land, subject to permit review by this Code. (See Section 4-503) A. Water Supply Systems. New and replacement water supply systems within floodplain overlay areas shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 48 B. Sanitary Sewage Systems. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems within floodplain overlay areas shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. On-site sanitary waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. C. Minimize Flood Damage. All new construction and improvements shall be constructed by recommended methods and practices that minimize flood damage, and using materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. D. Cumulative Effect. The cumulative effect of any proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development shall not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point. E. No Danger to Public. The proposed development shall not cause danger to persons upstream, downstream and in the immediate vicinity. F. No Change in Flood-Carrying Capacity. Maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of a watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. G. General Standards: In all areas of special flood hazards the following provisions are required for all new construction and substantial improvements: 1. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse; or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; 2. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; 3. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage; 4. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 5. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system; 6. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharge from the systems into flood waters; and, Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 49 7. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 8. When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the Floodplain Administrator must require that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community; and… …I. Standards for Subdivision Proposals 1. All subdivision proposals including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall be consistent with the requirements of these Regulations. 2. All proposals for the development of subdivisions including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall meet Development Permit requirements of 6.08.02 and the provisions of 6.09 of this resolution. 3. Base flood elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed development including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions which is greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, if not otherwise provided pursuant to these Regulations. 4. All subdivision proposals including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards. 5. All subdivision proposals including the placement of manufactured home parks and subdivisions shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage. J. Floodway Floodways located within areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: 1. Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 50 2. All new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions these Regulations. 3. Under the provisions of 44 CFR Chapter 1, Section 65.12, of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA." General ULUR Standard of Review: Slope Development "Section 7-102.H Slope Development. Development on slopes twenty percent (20%) or greater shall only be permitted to occur if the applicant demonstrates development complies with the following minimum requirements and standards, as certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, or qualified professional geologist, and approved by the County: 1. Development on Slopes 20 Percent or Greater. Building lots with twenty percent (20%) or greater slope shall require a special engineering study to establish the feasibility of development proposed for the site. The study shall address feasibility of construction required for the use, and describe the mitigation measures to be used to overcome excessive slope problems. 2. Development on Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent. Development shall be permitted to occur on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) only if the applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas and the development complies with the following minimum requirements and standards. a. Cutting and Filling. Cutting, filling, and other grading activities shall be confined to the minimum area necessary for construction b. Design Shall Fit Site. Development shall be located and designed to follow natural grade, rather than adjusting the site to fit the structure. Roads and driveways built to serve the development shall follow the contours of the natural terrain and, if feasible, shall be located behind existing landforms. 3. Development on Unstable or Potentially Unstable Slopes. If a site is identified as having moderate or extremely unstable slopes, then development shall be permitted only if the applicant." Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 51 General ULUR Standard of Review: Site Disturbance "Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development. A. Excessive Site Disturbance. The design and scale of the development shall minimize unnecessary or excessive site disturbance." General ULUR Standard of Review: Native Vegetation "Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. C. Preservation of Native Vegetation. 1. Vegetation Utilized by Wildlife. Proposed land use changes are designed to preserve large areas of vegetation utilized by wildlife for food and cover, based upon recommendations by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2. Removal and Replacement of Native Vegetation. When native vegetation must be removed within habitat areas, it is replaced with native and/ or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting post-disturbance land use. 3. Removal of Noxious Weeds. Vegetation removed to control noxious weeds is not required to be replaced, unless the site requires revegetation to prevent other noxious weeds from becoming established." General ULUR Standard of Review: Landscaping "Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards. A. Landscaping. 1. General Standards a. Maintenance. All plant materials must be kept in a healthy condition. Dead plants must be removed and replaced as necessary. (1) Newly installed landscaping must include a properly functioning automated sprinkler and/or drip irrigation system, with individual zones for nonturf areas. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 52 b. Restoration and Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. All portions of the site where existing vegetative cover is damaged or removed, that are not otherwise covered with new improvements, shall be successfully revegetated with a mix of native, adaptive and drought tolerant grasses and ground covers. The density of the reestablished vegetation must be adequate to prevent soil erosion and invasion of weeds after one growing season. c. Installation. All plant materials shall be installed in the best possible manner to ensure their continued viability. Shrub and flower beds must be lined with a weed barrier mesh (or similar material designed for weed control) to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds. d. Protection of Existing Trees and Shrubs. All landscaping plans shall include provisions to protect existing trees and shrubs that are to be preserved and integrated within the planting areas. (1) Construction materials and debris shall be stockpiled outside dripline areas, a minimum distance of 1½ times the dripline perimeter. The stockpile area shall be clearly marked with temporary fencing or other similar material. e. Landscaping Must Be Located On-Site. All required landscaping must be located on the property it serves. f. Location of Plantings With Regard to Right-of-Ways. All required landscaping must be located outside of any adjacent right-of-way unless a written waiver is received from the Director. g. Contents of Planting Beds. All planting beds shall contain a combination of organic and inorganic materials… 3. Subdivision, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Rural Land Development Exemption. a. Landscaping in a residential subdivision, planned unit development or rural land development exemption shall be consistent with the character of the development, the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. b. Landscaping in a clustered development shall include landscaping to create a buffer between dense clusters and lower density clusters and open space areas. c. Landscaping in a residential subdivision, planned unit development or rural land development exemption shall be used to screen from view uses such as trash enclosures, storage areas, mechanical equipment and similar items where such areas are visible from public roads, sidewalks or open space. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 53 4. Cover. Non-living ground cover may include decorative gravel, bark mulch, river rock or similar materials. Decorative elements, such as walks, decks, terraces, water features and similar features may be included. 5. Plants Compatible with Local Conditions. All plants used for landscaping shall be compatible with the local climate and the soils, drainage and water conditions of the site. When planting occurs on hillsides, slopes, drainage ways or similar natural areas, plant material should duplicate adjacent plant communities both in species composition and special distribution patterns. Whenever possible, drought-resistant varieties of plant materials shall be utilized. Xeriscape design principles and the use of native plant species shall be used when appropriate. 6. Existing Vegetation. The landscape plan shall be designed so that healthy trees, native vegetation and natural or significant rock outcroppings and other valuable features are preserved and integrated within planting areas. Existing healthy trees and shrubs that are preserved shall count towards the landscaping standards of this Division. 7. Minimum Size. To ensure healthy plant materials are installed in new development, trees and shrubs shall comply with the quality standards of the Colorado Nursery Act, 1973 C.R.S. Title 35, Article 36 as amended. a. Deciduous Trees. Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two inches (2”) in caliper measured four (4) inches above the ground. b. Coniferous Trees. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height, measured from the top of the root ball to the top of the tree. c. Ornamental Trees. Ornamental trees shall be a minimum of one and one-half (1.5) inches in caliper, measured four (4) inches above the ground. d. Shrubs and Vines. Shrubs shall be a minimum of one (1) foot in height at time of planting. Vines shall be in a minimum one (1) gallon container. 8. Minimum Number of Trees and Shrubs. Trees and shrubs must be grouped in strategic areas and not spread thinly around the site. Where screening is required, plant materials must be sufficient to create a semi-opaque wall of plant material between the property and the adjoining area to be screened." This section has found that the Project generally preserves wetlands and waterbodies;, places important environmental features within passive open areas; preserves flood capacities and protects development from potential flood damage; avoids development of steep slopes; uses site disturbance as a means of resolving previous environmental impacts and protecting important environmental features from development-related impacts; preserves and enhances the native vegetation and habitats; and proposes a landscape standard that serves to enhance and preserve natural areas, provide a Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 54 comfortable living environment for residents of the Project and minimize water use. As a result of the findings, the Project is found to generally conform to Section 7-203, 7- 701, 7-102.H, 7-303, 7-202.C and 7-305 of the ULUR. Further, the Project is found to have no adverse impacts on site features and to have been planned and designed in consideration of site features. 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The Project Site is located at the confluence of Cattle Creek with the Roaring Fork River, between the City of Glenwood Springs and Town of Carbondale. The Project Site is adjacent to 54 acre RFC Conservation Easement which contains the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek and associated wetlands. The Project Site is not directly contiguous to either the Roaring Fork River or Cattle Creek, but does straddle Cattle Creek and includes one crossing of Cattle Creek via an easement shown on the ALTA Map, Series V01 of the Drawing Package. The site location and boundaries are provided in Exhibits 1 and 2(a-d) of Appendix B. The existing Project Site features/conditions and features/conditions immediately adjacent to the Project Site are shown on the Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. a) Rivers, Creeks and Flooding The Roaring Fork River flows from the south to north just west of the Project Site through the RFC Conservation Easement. The Roaring Fork River is a large perennial river with a very large drainage basin to the south. The 160 acre Project Site is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. Cattle Creek crosses through the Project Site from east to west and roughly divides the property in half. Cattle Creek is a moderate sized perennial stream with a large drainage basin to the east. Cattle Creek joins the Roaring Fork River about mid-way along the western edge of the Project Site. Small alluvial fans are present on the terrace surfaces in the eastern part of Project Site. The upper parts of all of these fans have been removed by grading for Highway 82 and development to the east of the highway. The fans developed at the mouths of small drainage basins on the eastern Roaring Fork River valley side. These basins support ephemeral steams that only flow following heavy rainfall and snow melt. The fans are discussed in more detail under the Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis. The floodplains associated with both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek generally do not extend onto the Project Site except along small portions of Cattle Creek. These areas are all identified as being included in non-development areas of the REC. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 55 b) Lakes and Wetlands Wetlands exist along both Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands do not generally extend off the RFC Conservation Easement onto the Project Site except in very small pockets at the southern end of the site and along portions of Cattle Creek. No wetlands are present on the upper or mid-level terraces within the Project Site. Lakes or ponds were excavated on the Project Site as golf features as part of the proposed Sanders Ranch PUD but never completed. c) Groundwater Groundwater in the area is generally tied to the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. The presence of groundwater is evidenced by wetlands on lower river terraces. The water levels in these wetlands generally coincide with the depth to groundwater. HP Geotech (Geotechnical Engineering Study, Appendix J) measured groundwater at depths of from 39 to 77 feet in various borings. The depths tend to correspond to river and wetland levels in the area. As a result, shallow groundwater can be expected closer to the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. These shallow groundwater areas are generally located outside the Project Site. HP Geotech notes that shallow perched groundwater can occur in association with the type of surficial deposits on the Project Site during heavy rains, but HP Geotech has not identified any specific occurrences. Groundwater is discussed in more detail under the Groundwater Supply and Aquifer Recharge section (Section III.F) of this Analysis. d) Topography The existing topography in the area is shown by the contour lines on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. These contours represent the post-grading contours associated with grading activities conducted by Bair Chase in 2005 in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. As discussed in the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J), the proposed 160 acre development area is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The terraces have an average down-valley slope of less than one percent. Steep escarpments separate the original terrace levels. These escarpments typically have slopes of up to 60 percent. The escarpments between some terrace levels were obliterated during previous grading. The current topography is significantly modified due to past grading, and nearly 80 years of agricultural activities even before the most recent development activities. The proposed pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) will result in regrading the Project Site in accordance with the Reclaimed Conditions, Series ES02 of the Drawing Package. As a result of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), the Project Site will generally have a gentle Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 56 to moderate grade from the Northeast to Southwest north of Cattle Creek and East Northeast to West Southwest south of Cattle Creek. Major grade changes and steeper slopes will occur in areas along the edges of the proposed development area behind lots and between residential pods in open spaces and common areas. For practical purposes, these topographic conditions will represent the pre-development conditions when development of the Project Site is initiated. These activities would not likely occur unless development was proposed since cost recovery would not be possible without development. However, as discussed throughout this Analysis reclamation of the Project Site is necessary in order to restore soil cover and reasonable and appropriate vegetative cover in the interim and prepare the Project Site for development. e) Vegetative Cover As noted in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K), the current State of the vegetative cover over much of the Project Site reflects several recent and historical impacts. While the area within the RFC Conservation Easement along the Roaring Fork River is still dominated by native woody species, much of the upland portion of the Project Site was cleared of native vegetation around 100 years ago to plant non–native hay grasses and/or provide for livestock and farming activities. The riparian vegetation along Cattle Creek itself is highly altered. The impacts from past year-round grazing practices are also still apparent as very little woody vegetation occurs along much of Cattle Creek on the upper benches. Any remaining pockets of native sagebrush shrublands also show little species diversity. The introduction of the noxious weed species along the Roaring Fork River’s riparian corridor probably occurred during the agricultural operation of the area as well. In 2005, the upland topsoils on Project Site were removed and salvaged with heavy equipment and most of the property was re-contoured and taken down to subsoil in preparation for development. Partway through these efforts, the development was abandon. The acres of newly denuded, very cobbly subsoils were colonized by ruderal, non-native weed species such as white sweetclover (Melilotis alba), flixweed (Descurainia Sophia) and Russian thistle (Salsola collina). Several noxious weeds also took residency, including kochia (Bassia sieversiana), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). While noxious weed treatments have been ongoing for the past 3 years, a great majority of the Project Site has remained in this current denuded and weedy State for since 2005. CI has recently seeded the stockpiles and graded areas with a temporary seed mix to increase soil cover, reduce erosion and provide competition for weeds. The graded areas are essentially devoid of vegetation except for weeds. The Existing Condition and Land Suitability Map, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package show the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 57 areas of disturbance, soil stockpiles, and vegetative cover on the Project Site. Vegetation outside the previously irrigated and graded areas is mostly sage, oak and other brush on the fans and terrace escarpments. Cottonwood trees, grass and willows are present on the lower terraces adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. f) Climate The Project Site displays a semi-arid climate, almost grading into an arid type (Western Regional Climate Center, 2010). Winters are cold and dry, with a January high and low of 36.9 °F (and 11.8 °F, respectively; because of its location west of the Rockies, it does not receive much influence from Chinook winds as the areas east of the Rockies, but it receives protection from Arctic air masses that can settle to the east of the Rockies. Snowfall is often only moderate, with a 105-year average of 67.5 inches, though the median is 52 inches, and moreover, snow cover remains very short. Snow is greatest in December and January. Spring warming is gradual but quickens when nearing May. Summer is warm but dry, with average July highs reaching 88.6 °F and lows reaching 50.6 °F. Autumn cooling is rapid, with freezes usually beginning in mid- to late September. Precipitation records exist for Glenwood Springs dating back to 1893 and give perspective on what the expectations are for receipt of natural rainfall on the Project Site. The average annual precipitation per year for Glenwood Springs is 16.43 inches which supports a relatively xeric environment. Locally, a typical spring or fall month is wetter than the mid-summer months, but in general only by fractions of an inch. Generally, precipitation ranges from 1.2-1.5 inches a month. These rates are typically not adequate for revegetation efforts. g) History and Human Impacts As noted in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K), historically, the site was likely dominated by basin sagebrush flats (Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata), with patches of mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. pauciflora). During the past 80 years or so, this site was used as a cattle ranch, and the broad, flat terraces were irrigated pastureland. During the summer of 2005, the Project Site was graded for the Sanders Ranch PUD. Midway through grading, the project was terminated, which left the majority of the Project Site with a cobbly surface. Topsoil was salvaged by this early grading process and stored in large piles on the property. The Existing Condition and Land Suitability Map, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package show the areas of disturbance, soil stockpiles, and vegetative cover on the Project Site. With respect to disturbed soils and revegetation, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) have noted that "soils have been stockpiled for upwards of 5 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 58 years and the soil microbial populations, nutrient levels, and mycorrhizal fungi populations will be highly altered." This could result in difficulty in reestablishing native vegetation. The large irrigation ditch that crosses through the property was placed in a subsurface pipe as part of the abandoned grading activities. A modular home and small bridge across Cattle Creek exist on the Project Site and will be removed as part of development activities. Stockpiles of soil and some construction waste also exist on the Project Site. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Several sections of the ULUR appear to address the existing site features as a means of measuring the potential impacts of the Project. Many of these sections of the ULUR are also discussed in other applicable sections of this Analysis. The potential impacts associated with each site feature are discussed below. As shown by this Analysis, the Project has no adverse impacts on the site features and site features have been reasonably accounted for and addressed by the REC PUD. Mitigations as included in the REC PUD are appropriate and result in resolution of potential issues and concerns. As a result of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), the Project should enhance geotechnical, erosion, vegetative, and habitat conditions. The Project generally preserves wetlands and waterbodies; places important environmental features within passive open areas; preserves flood capacities and protects development from potential flood damage; avoids development of steep slopes; uses site disturbance as a means of resolving previous environmental impacts and protecting important environmental features from development-related impacts; preserves and enhances the native vegetation and habitats; and proposes a landscape standard that serves to enhance and preserve natural areas, provide a comfortable living environment for residents of the Project and minimize water use. As a result of the findings, the Project conform to Section 7- 203, 7-701, 7-102.H, 7-303, 7-202.C and 7-305 of the ULUR. Several conditions on the Project Site have lead to planning, design and mitigation measures as part of REC outside the traditional geotechnical and wildlife conditions which are discussed in other sections of this Analysis. Of greatest significance to the REC is the unfinished 2005 regrading of the Project Site. The regrading in 2005 left a series of issues that must be addressed in the process of developing REC. These issues include poor quality and undesirable vegetative cover, habitat loss, and geotechnical concerns (See Section III.D). As a result of these findings, CI has proposed a Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) that would restore the Project Site to a reasonable State for purposes of protecting the environment and preparing the Project Site for development in accordance with the REC PUD. The specific purpose and description of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) is provided in the Reclamation Plan section (Section III.J) of this Analysis. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) specifically deals with geotechnical issues [including slope stability issues described in the Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis], replaces soils, restores native and Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 59 agricultural vegetative cover and eliminates noxious weeds, and preconditions the Project Site for development. a) River, Creeks and Flooding The standards for river, creeks, and flooding are addressed by Sections 7- 203, and 7-701 of the ULUR. The applicable provisions of the ULUR are provided in the Wetlands and Waterbodies; Open Space, Riparian, and Wetlands; Floodplain and Flooding insets. Section 7-203 generally requires a buffer of 35 feet from the high water mark of all waterbodies and prohibits activities within these areas including the placement of fill and structures that could impact the quality of the waterbody. All proposed development within the REC is located outside areas of flooding and the 35 foot buffer except the road and utility crossing of Cattle Creek and the water supply diversion on the Roaring Fork River, if required. Utility crossings of the Roaring Fork River, if required, are subject to location and extent review under C.R.S. 30-28-110 and are not part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications. Grading and revegetation of areas within the 35 foot buffer is proposed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). As stated previously, the Project Site is highly degraded due to 80 years of agricultural activity and regrading as part of the Sanders Ranch PUD. Areas along the banks of the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are subject to erosion and slope failure. Noxious weeds and non- native vegetation is the dominate form of vegetation. Reclamation of these areas requires a series of activities outlined in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) to restore the land and prevent further degradation. Prohibiting these reclamation activities from occurring would prevent the stabilization of failing slopes and control of invasive species. As a result, the activities proposed by the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and open space and common areas within which these 35 foot buffers are placed are viewed as having a beneficial effect on Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River and in keeping with the provisions of Section 7-203. As mentioned previously, utility crossings and a bridge structure over Cattle Creek are proposed as is a water supply diversion from the Roaring Fork River, if required. These are discussed in more detail under the floodplain development discussion later in this section and in Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis. The proposed activities generally have only temporary effects to wetlands and waterbodies as discussed in the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of this Analysis. These potential impacts from crossings and water diversion facilities are addressed by the ACOE and RFC as discussed in Section III.A.2.b.1 of this Analysis. The bridge and utility crossings and water diversion are also found to be in keeping with the requirements of Section 7-203. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and bridge and utility construction procedures will be required to include appropriate sediment control and stormwater measures to help ensure protection of the waterbodies and wetlands from degradation during Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 60 construction. While temporary impacts are likely to occur, through the measures required by the ACOE and RFC protection is provided to the maximum extent practicable. Avoidance of these activities and the associated temporary impacts is unavoidable if the Project Site is to be developed at any density that requires access to potable water and sewer and access to the south side of Cattle Creek. Based on the above findings, the Project will have insignificant adverse impacts to wetlands and waterbodies and the temporary impacts associated with the Project are unavoidable. Restoration and construction restrictions will be required as part of the CWA Section 404 Permit and duplication of controls or additional mitigation outside State and Federal authority is unnecessary. Lands adjacent to waterbodies and riparian areas on the Project Site are places in open space or common areas including the buffer area required by Section 7-203 of the ULUR. As a result, the Project conforms to Section 7- 203 of the ULUR. The Project offers long-term protection in the form of open space restrictions in the PUD Guide to help ensure that waterbodies, wetlands and riparian areas are protected as part of the development action. Further, the REC PUD enhances these areas through the implementation of a Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) designed to address habitat and environmental degradation with these areas. Finally, areas subject to flooding have been avoided and placed in undevelopable portions of the Project Site. Substantial setbacks from areas subject to these influences are provided in the REC as a means of protecting development from flooding and preserving flood capacities. A floodplain development permit issued under Section 4-411 of the ULUR will be required by Garfield County for some of the activities proposed including elements of certain potable water and sanitary sewer alternatives and the bridge crossing of Cattle Creek. The potential floodplain activities will be required to meet the standards of Section 7-701 of the ULUR. Based on the water supply and water and sanitary sewage treatment and design reports (see Section I.C of this Analysis for a list of applicable reports), any of the proposed activities within the floodplain can be designed to meet the ULUR standards and, as such, will have no adverse impact on the floodplain. In addition, as shown on the Bridge Plan and Section, Series S01 of the Drawing Package and discussed in the Project Engineering Design Report, the proposed bridge has no impact to flood elevations and is protected from damage due to flooding. In addition, as discussed in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Project is designed to manage stormwater flows in a manner that does not increase the baseflood elevation. As a result, the design proposed as part of the REC PUD conforms to Section 7-701 of the ULUR and results in no adverse impacts to the floodplain and flooding. b) Lake and Wetlands In conformance with Section 7-203 (See Wetlands and Waterbodies inset above), sensitive areas such as wetlands have been avoided and placed in Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 61 undevelopable portions of the Project Site. Substantial setbacks from areas subject to these influences are provided in the REC as a means of protecting wetlands from damage. Crossings of wetlands may be required to accommodate utilities and bridges over Cattle Creek and utilities and water diversion along the Roaring Fork River. These impacts, as discussed under the Adjacent Properties and Land Use section (Section III.A) and the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of this Analysis. While temporary impacts are likely to occur, through the measures required by the ACOE and RFC, protection is provided to the maximum extent practicable. These activities and the associated temporary impacts is unavoidable if the Project Site is to be developed at any denisty that requires access to potable water and sewer and access to the south side of Cattle Creek. Based on the above findings, the Project will have insignificant adverse impacts to wetlands and the potential temporary adverse impacts associated with the Project are unavoidable. Restoration and construction restrictions will be required as part of the CWA Section 404 Permit and duplication of controls or additional mitigation outside of State and Federal authorities is unnecessary. c) Groundwater The Project is generally unaffected by groundwater. Groundwater is not immediately present and therefore no specific mitigation is proposed or necessary under this section. Potential soil drainage issues and localized groundwater and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the Soils Characteristics section (Section III.C) of this Analysis. Potential impacts to groundwater quality are discussed in the Groundwater Supply and Aquifer Recharge section (Section III.F.) of this Analysis. d) Topography Topography and slope development issues and standards are addressed by Sections 7-102.H of the ULUR. Generally, excessive site disturbance, grading, and development of steep slopes (>20%) are to be avoided. The applicable provisions of the ULUR are provided in the Slope Development inset. This Analysis has determined that the Project conforms to Section 7-102.H of the ULUR and has no adverse impacts on topography and provides beneficial enhancements to existing conditions. As previously noted, the Project Site is substantially altered from natural conditions through 80 years of agricultural activities and regrading associated with the Sanders Ranch PUD in 2005. As a result of the regrading activities the topography has been altered and existing slopes do not match pre-grading conditions. The Existing Condition and Land Suitability Map, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package show the areas of disturbance, soil stockpiles, topography, and vegetative cover on the Project Site. Substantial regrading is proposed to correct drainage, geohazard and other problematic conditions resulting from the previous activities undertaken onsite. The regrading is proposed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) to Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 62 provide for positive drainage and support soil and vegetative cover, as well as provide protection of conservation resources within the RFC Conservation Easement. These actions are recommended or supported by the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J) and Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K). Once regraded and reclaimed no development within the Project is proposed on slopes of greater than 20 percent. Steeper slopes are located and utilized at the edges of the development area to protect passive open spaces near the RFC Conservation Easement from encroachment. These slopes mark the change in vegetation types from naturalized areas to non-naturalized areas. Further these slopes will mimic and replace the terrace features that previously existed on the Project Site. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) results in restoration of the Project Site to a condition more consistent with pre-grading conditions. While alternative grading plans that require less topographic realignment are possible and some of those alternatives might support reclamation of the Project Site, as previously discussed, reclamation of the Project Site is dependent on a development plan that can be expected to reasonably provide the necessary financial support to pay for the reclamation. Without a combined program of reclamation and development, reclamation of the Project Site could not be supported. No adverse impacts on the environment and the visual qualities associated with the Project Site are anticipated in association with the Project. Along with the avoidance of steep slopes by the development areas within the REC PUD, while the Project Site grading is significant and outside the specific parameters of Section 7-102.H, the Project conforms to the intent of Section 7-102.H. and has significant beneficial potential impacts. e) Vegetative Cover Vegetative cover is an important consideration under the ULUR. Land disturbance, native vegetation and landscaping are addressed by Sections 7- 202, 7-303, and 7-305 of the ULUR. The specific applicable provisions of these sections are quoted in the Site Disturbance, Landscaping, and Native Vegetation insets below. This Analysis has determined that the Project conforms to Section 7-202, 7-303 and 7-305 of the ULUR and has no adverse impacts but has significant beneficial impacts on vegetative resources. As previously discussed, a majority of the Project Site has been disturbed by past agricultural activities and grading in 2005 in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. The Existing Condition and Land Suitability Map, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package show the areas of disturbance and vegetative cover on the Project Site. Restoration is proposed in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). In order to restore the Project Site, extensive regrading is necessary. A comprehensive revegetation strategy is proposed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) (See Reclamation Plan, Section III.J of this Analysis). As previously explained, while the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 63 involves extensive site disturbance, the site disturbance is necessary in order to complete the restorative and mitigation actions required and prepare the Project Site for development. Unless, the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) includes preparing the Project Site for development, reclamation of the Project Site is unlikely to occur since such an action is fiscally infeasible without the revenues associated with potential development. The Project conforms to Section 7-303 since the Project Site is disturbed and the disturbance proposed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) is the minimum necessary to provide for site restoration. Regrading, as part of the Restoration Plan, includes revegetation which conforms to the landscaping and native vegetation provisions of the ULUR (Sections 7-203 and 7-305). As previously discussed, the vegetative cover on the Project Site is significantly degraded. The regrading and replacement of soil cover as part of reclamation will establish a canvas for revegetation efforts. The soil microbial populations, nutrient levels, and mycorrhizal fungi populations in soil stockpiles will be highly altered. With respect to disturbed soils and revegetation, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) have noted that they recommend that soil samples be sent to Colorado State University for nutrient analyses prior to the revegetation activities and appropriate treatments be undertaken as part of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) to enhance potential success of revegetation efforts. The most cost effective means of influencing mycorrhizal populations on large projects is to provide suitable soil conditions such as using soils with higher soil organic matter and avoiding heavy fertilization. The stockpiled topsoils on the property may or may not have adequate levels of organic matter and may also require enrichment. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) includes an assessment of these conditions and appropriate actions as necessary to enhance the soils in association with replacement. With respect to areas of passive open space and slopes, the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and Landscape Plans (Landscape Plan and Scheduled, Series LA01-05 of the Drawing Package) address the revegetation of these areas in detail. The plans provide for native seed mixes and plant species within these areas in accordance with Section 7-202 and 7-305 of the ULUR, and includes the proposed heron buffering actions proposed as part of the REC PUD and discussed in the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) and Critical Wildlife Habitat section (Section III.G.2) of this Analysis. In addition, the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) includes measures to remove and eliminate noxious weeds as part of the action. Further, where removal of health native vegetation cannot be avoided it will be relocated, as necessary, to support the Project Site's restoration. In most cases, healthy stands of native vegetation and woody species only exist outside the Project Site within the RFC Conservation Easement, but clearly some slope mitigation measures and bank stabilization efforts could affect native species. Areas within future development areas of the Project Site will be Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 64 planted in temporary species including agricultural and landscape species as a means of growing landscaping stock onsite until development occurs. The landscaping standards included as part of the PUD Guide generally conform to the requirements of Section 7-305 of the ULUR. While detailed landscape plans will not be submitted until final plats are filed for review, the landscape prototypical plan and standards contained in the PUD Guide and depicted on the Landscape Plan appear to achieve the goals identified in Section 7-305 of the ULUR except that minimum tree sizes are reduced, as recommended by the landscape architect for the Project to help ensue better survival rates. The Project has no adverse impacts on vegetation and will restore damaged areas and help to eliminate noxious weeds. The native species mixes planted in passive open spaces will be beneficial to wildlife. f) Climate While no specific climatic effects are anticipated to affect the Project, the climate leads to specific difficulties with revegetation and development of the Project Site. Based on the semi-arid climate and specific precipitation regime within which the Project Site is located, well-timed and directed supplemental irrigation would be extremely beneficial if not necessary to revegetate the Project Site, as noted by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. Additional water assists in germination and establishment of both locally native and cultivated plant materials, even though after establishment, these highly adapted native plants will be able to survive without the extra water. Setting up temporary irrigation on all seeded sites and for containerized plantings must be planned because natural precipitation is generally too low during summer months. In accordance with Section 7-305.A.1.a, irrigation will be provided for all landscaped areas in accordance with the Raw Water Supply and Distribution Plan. This includes supplemental water for native areas until established. No adverse impacts are anticipated in association with climate. g) History and Human Impac ts The history of use associated with the property is one of the most significant influences on future use and development. As discussed in this section and in the Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis, previous agricultural activities and grading associated with the Sanders Ranch PUD have resulted in degradation of the Project Site and may have exacerbated natural hazards. CI has proposed a Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) (See Section III.J of this Analysis) to attempt to resolve these issues and enhance the condition of site features. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 65 As a result of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), the Project is likely to have no adverse impacts on site features and provides benefit to several site features including vegetation, slopes, and waterbodies. C. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS The section discusses the soils and surficial deposits that affect the development of the Project Site. This section is supported by the Geology and Hazards section (Section III.G) of the Analysis. The information in this section is drawn from the Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix J) and Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). The review under this section is related to several provisions of the ULUR related to site stability and erosion control including: Section 4-502.C.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Requirement to provide a plan for erosion and sediment control. Section 7-102.H Slope Development. Provides for the avoidance of development of steep slopes. (See Inset Section III.B) Section 7-109 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Provided for avoidance and mitigation of hazards. (See Inset Section III.D) Section 7-202.C Native Vegetation. Provides for the preservation of native vegetation. (See Inset Section III.B) Section 7-203 Wetlands and Waterbodies. Provides for buffer areas and the protection of waterbodies and wetlands. (See Inset Section III.B) Section 7-205 Erosion. Requirement to obtain required CDPHE permit for disturbance. (See Erosion inset below) Section 7-210 Development of Hazard Areas. Provides standards for the development of hazard areas. (See Inset Section III.D) Section 7-212 Reclamation. Provides for the reclamation of disturbed areas. (See Inset Section III.J) Section 7-303 Site Disturbance. Provides for minimizing site disturbance and excessive alternation of site topography. (See Inset Section III.B) Section 7-305 Landscaping. Provides for landscaping and vegetative cover in keeping with environmental conditions for protection of the environment, screening, and as community amenity. (See Inset Section III.B) Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 66 General ULUR Standard of Review: Erosion "Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation. The following requirements shall apply to land disturbances shall be subject to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and to all land development disturbing more than one-half (1/2) acre, with the exception of agricultural grading activities, unless excepted by CDPHE." This Analysis has determined that there are no adverse impacts associated with soils and surficial deposits provided common construction and site evaluation techniques are implemented as detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and that reclamation and erosion control as detailed in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are provided. The Project is found to conform to the requirements of Section 4-502.C.4 and Sections 7-102.H, 109, 202.C, 203, 205, 210, 212, 303, 305. The hazards associated with the soils on the Project Site are primarily associated with subsurface geologic hazards which are discussed in the Geology and Hazards section (Section III.G) of the Analysis. 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS HP Geotech completed an assessment of soils and geologic conditions including the identification of geologic hazards for the REC PUD in November 2010. The following discussion concerning the soil conditions is summarized from the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J). The main landforms at the Project Site related to the site's surficial materials include (1) post-glacial alluvial terraces along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, (2) Pinedale glacial outwash terraces along the Roaring Fork River and related alluvial terraces along Cattle Creek, and (3) coalescing alluvial fans [the alluvial fans are discussed further under the Geologic Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis]. A small part of the proposed development area within the REC PUD is located on the post-glacial alluvial terraces and the remaining development area, except the Executive Lot at the south end of the REC PUD sits on the Pinedale glacial outwash terraces. The Executive Lot sits on an alluvial fan and is discussed under the Geologic and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis. The topsoil was stripped from most of the Project Site and stockpiled in 2005 by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD approved by Garfield County. The areas stripped of topsoil and stockpile sites are shown on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 in the Drawing Package. The previous grading consists of both cut and fill areas. The fill areas are mostly composed of coarse-grained terrace alluvium. The terrace topsoil and upper fine-grained deposits were separated during grading and were placed in the soil stockpiles. The character of the coarse- and fine-grained terrace alluvium is Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 67 described in the Pinedale Terraces as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Study. The post-glacial terraces are located as two terraces. The lower terrace stands about 5 feet above the river and the higher terrace stands about 13 feet above the river. The alluvium is described as a clast-supported deposit of silty sand with occasional bouldery, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected to be present in these areas. A small part of the proposed development area in the southern part of the Project Site is located on the upper terrace. Elsewhere the proposed development will be located on the higher Pinedale terraces. The Pinedale outwash terraces along the Roaring Fork River and the associated Cattle Creek terraces occur in several levels that formed at different periods. Grading in 2005 removed all of the mid level terraces. Essentially all of the proposed development will be on the graded area (originally the fifth and sixth terraces) and on the third, fourth and seventh terrace levels. The alluvium under the Pinedale terraces associated with the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are a clast-supported deposit of rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders in a silty sand matrix. Pedogenetic soil profiles are well developed in the Pinedale terraces. This indicates these surfaces have been stable with respect to erosion and deposition for over about 5,000 years. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on this Analysis and work conducted by HP Geotech and 8140 Partners, LLC, no specific or critical soil-related issues have been identified that would indicate a problem for development of the site. The Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J) identifies a series of standard considerations with respect to construction on soils of this type. These require standard engineering assessments and design activities including boring, testing, and onsite review during development. These measures or actions are discussed in the Project Engineering Design Report and Hazard Mitigation Plan. Risks and issues related to geologic conditions, as discussed in Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis, should be carefully considered as they impact soil stability. The Project Site is underlain at depth with Eagle Valley Evaporite with some risk of future ground subsidence. The Project has no adverse impacts related to soils and conforms to the requirements of Section 4-502.C.4 and Sections 7-102.H, 109, 202.C, 203, 205, 210, 212, 303, 305 of the ULUR based on the proposed actions included as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Project Engineering Design Report, and Hazard Mitigation Plan. These recommendations have been reasonably integrated into the PUD Guide to ensure the protection of soils and the proper design and construction of structures and infrastructure. With respect to soils in place, HP Geotech noted that while bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location, in general, shallow foundations placed on the upper natural soils should typically be suitable for structure support. Relatively rigid foundations such as heavily reinforced slabs could be Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 68 used to reduce the risk of differential settlement and building distress, where determined necessary. HP Geotech expects allowable bearing pressures in the range of 1,500 psf to 2,500 psf for footings bearing on the natural fine-grained soils in the Pinedale terraces with some potential for settlement or heave due to the fine grained nature of the soils. Due to the depositional environment that created the alluvial terraces, expansive clays could be encountered in small lenses. If encountered, building areas may need to be moved or the footings designed to impose a minimum dead load pressure to limit potential heave. Footings bearing entirely on the natural gravel alluvium can be sized for allowable bearing pressures in the range of 3,000 to 5,000 psf and should be used for heavily loaded structures such as abutments for the bridge across Cattle Creek. Foundation walls should be designed to span local anomalies and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structures. Below grade areas, such as basements, and retaining walls should be protected from wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrain system, where appropriate. Footings should have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection. Slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill. There could be some potential for post-construction slab movement at sites with collapsible soils or expansive clays. Removal of the moisture sensitive soils and replacement with compacted structural fill could be provided to reduce the movement risk. The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings and structures are located in the less steep parts of the property as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. It should be noted that the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J) also notes that piping caused by excess water is a problem. The subgrade soils encountered throughout the development area consist of sandy silt and clay and river gravel alluvium. The fine-grained soils are of limited depth and extent partly due to prior grading. A Hveem 'R' value of 17 was obtained on a sample of the fine-grained soils. The fine-grained soils could be removed down to the gravel alluvium to provide a suitable surface for pavement construction. A detailed pavement design is proposed to be conducted after pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) based on the traffic loading, as proposed in the Project Engineering Design Report. The concentration of water soluble sulfates (i.e., 0.013% at Bore 019) generally represents a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to these materials. Based on the results, HP Geotech recommends that concrete exposed to the on-site soils contain Type I/II portland cement (less than 5% tri-calcium aluminate) which recommendation is included in the Project Engineering Design Report. Previous site grading results in the most substantial risk to construction. With respect to disturbed soils, HP Geotech noted that while resistance is high in Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 69 areas where fill has been placed, they are uncertain if the fills in all areas are suitable for building foundations. As a result, additional geotechnical work will need to be done prior to development as part of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) and development of the site. Disturbed soils and existing fill will need to be tested during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) and development to determine if they should be removed, replaced and compacted where existing conditions would not support foundations. Mitigation approaches are specifically described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan addresses the protection of soils from erosion. The Landscape Plan addresses the irrigation of lands and control of water to prevent erosion, piping and soil movement. These requirements have been integrated into the PUD Guide. D. GEOLOGY AND HAZARDS This section presents and discusses the geologic and other hazards associated with the Project Site and the potential impacts on development. The information presented is primarily taken from the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J) by HP Geotech and the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section evaluates the potential impacts of the geology and hazards in relationship to the requirements of Sections 7-109 and 7-210 of the ULUR (See the Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Development of Hazard Areas insets below), fire hazards in relationship to Section 6-202.I (See the Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Development of Hazard Areas insets below), and Section 7-701 concerning floodplain development (See Section III.B inset). The Project could also be subject to Section 7-209 concerning wildfire hazard, but as noted below, the Project Site is located in a low hazard zone. Based on the Project design and Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project conforms to the requirements of Section 7-109, 210 and 701 of the ULUR. The Project has no adverse impacts associated with the geology and hazards identified and may have several potential beneficial effects in association with steep terrace escarpment stabilization. General ULUR Standard of Review: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards "Section 6-202.I Fire Hazards. Fire hazards will not be created or increased." "Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards. The use is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards and will not exacerbate existing natural hazards. A. Platting of Land Subject to Natural Hazards Prohibited or Restricted. Land subject to identified natural hazards such as falling rock, landslides, snow slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted unless mitigation is proposed by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, and approved by the County." Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 70 General ULUR Standard of Review: Development of Hazard Areas "Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards. The development shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate the potential impacts of hazardous site conditions, by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer…. …G. Development in Alluvial Fan Hazard Area. Development shall only be permitted to occur in an alluvial fan if the applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas, and the development complies with the following minimum requirements and standards, as certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, or qualified professional geologist, and approved by the County: 1. Protective Measures. Development shall be protected using structures or other measures on the uphill side that channel, dam, or divert the potential mud or debris flow. 2. Disturbance Above Alluvial Fan Prohibited. Disturbance shall be prohibited in the drainage basin above an alluvial fan, unless an evaluation of the effect on runoff and stability of the fan and on the ground water recharge area shows that disturbance is not substantial or can be successfully mitigated. H. Slope Development. Development on slopes twenty percent (20%) or greater shall only be permitted to occur if the applicant demonstrates development complies with the following minimum requirements and standards, as certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, or qualified professional geologist, and approved by the County: 1. Development on Slopes 20 Percent or Greater. Building lots with twenty percent (20%) or greater slope shall require a special engineering study to establish the feasibility of development proposed for the site. The study shall address feasibility of construction required for the use, and describe the mitigation measures to be used to overcome excessive slope problems. 2. Development on Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent. Development shall be permitted to occur on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) only if the applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas and the development complies with the following minimum requirements and standards. a. Cutting and Filling. Cutting, filling, and other grading activities shall be confined to the minimum area necessary for construction b. Design Shall Fit Site. Development shall be located and designed to follow natural grade, rather than adjusting the site to fit the structure. Roads and driveways built to serve the development shall follow the contours of the natural terrain and, if feasible, shall be located behind existing landforms. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 71 3. Development on Unstable or Potentially Unstable Slopes. If a site is identified as having moderate or extremely unstable slopes, then development shall be permitted only if the applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas and the development complies with certified geotechnical design and construction stabilization and maintenance measures. a. Cutting Into a Slope. Cutting into the slope is prohibited without provision of adequate mechanical support. b. Adding Water or Weight. Adding water or weight to the top of the slope, or along the length of the slope is prohibited; c. Removing Vegetation. Vegetation shall not be removed from the slope unless it will be replaced on a timely basis acceptable to the County. d. Over-Steeping. Activities that over-steep the existing grade of an unstable slope are prohibited. I. Development on Corrosive or Expansive Soils and Rock. Development in areas with corrosive or expansive soils and rock shall be designed based upon an evaluation of the development's effect on slope stability and shrink-swell characteristics. Development shall be permitted only if the applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas and the development complies with design, construction stabilization, and maintenance measures certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, or qualified professional geologist, and the design approved by the County. 1. Drainage Away From Foundations. Surface drainage shall be directed away from foundations. 2. Concentrate Runoff into Natural Drainages. Runoff from impervious surfaces shall be directed into natural drainages or otherwise on-site in a manner that does not create or increase adverse impacts to the development site or to adjacent or other property. J. Development in Mudflow Areas. Development shall be permitted in a mudflow area only if the applicant demonstrates that the development cannot avoid such areas, and the development complies with recommended mitigating design, construction stabilization, and maintenance measures as certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, or qualified professional geologist, and approval by the County. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 72 K. Development Over Faults. Development shall be permitted over faults only if the applicant demonstrates that such areas cannot be avoided and the development complies with mitigation measures based on geotechnical analysis and recommendations, as certified by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, or by a qualified professional geologist, and approved by the County." 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS a) Geologic Hazards HP Geotech completed an assessment of geologic conditions including the identification of geologic hazards for the REC PUD in November 2010. The Geotechnical Engineering Study is included in Appendix J. Five primary hazards affecting the Project Site were identified in the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J). These hazards include evaporite sink holes, steep terrace escarpments, active stream bank erosion, debris flows and floods, and earthquakes. The following key information and considerations are drawn from in the study. (1) Evaporite Sink Holes HP Geotech notes that the near surface formation rock in the area is the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The evaporite between Carbondale and about 3 miles south of Glenwood Springs is part of the Roaring Fork diapir which coincides with the Grand Hogback monocline that marks the western limit of the Carbondale evaporite collapse center. The Carbondale evaporite collapse center is the western of two regional evaporite collapse centers present in the western Colorado evaporite region. As much as 4,000 feet of regional ground subsidence is believed to have occurred during the past 10 million years as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the region. HP Geotech notes that it is uncertain if the regional subsidence and evaporite deformation along the Roaring Fork diapir are still an active geomorphic process or if evaporite deformations have stopped. If still active, present deformations are likely occurring at rates similar to past long-term rates of between 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. HP Geotech concludes that these slow deformation rates should not present a potential risk to buildings and other facilities being considered at the Project Site. HP Geotech identified nine general sinkhole areas in the field and on aerial photographs in and close to the Project Site. These locations are identified on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, EC01 Series of the Drawing Package. Evaporite sinkholes in western Colorado are typically 10- to 50-foot diameter, circular depressions at the ground surface that result from upward caving of Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 73 a soil rubble pipe to the ground surface. The soil rubble pipe is formed by subsurface erosion (piping) of near surface soils into subsurface voids. Sinkhole development is still an active geomorphic process. The Project Site is potentially subject to new sinkhole development or reactivation of existing sinkholes. (2) Steep Terrace Escarpments Steep terrace escarpments that commonly have slopes of about 60 percent and vary from 40 to 80 feet high are present along the Roaring Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are potentially unstable and in some cases have been further destabilized due to piping associated with irrigation water from the previous agricultural activities on the Project Site. The escarpments are located along the western most property line and encroach into the RFC Conservation Easement. These areas can contribute to sediment production during rain and flood events or in association with excessive irrigation. (3) Active Stream Bank Erosion Active stream bank erosion during high flood flow is occurring along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. In several areas, where these streams flow along the base of the steep terrace escarpments they can result in further destabilizing the steep terrace escarpments. These areas contribute to sediment production during rain and flood event and can result in more catastrophic inputs to the Roaring Fork River when failures occur. These areas all lie outside the boundaries of the Project Site within the RFC Conservation Easement. (4) Debris Flow and Floods HP Geotech noted that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the numerous, small drainage basins on the east Roaring Fork River valley side where the ephemeral streams in these basins discharge on terrace surfaces. Before construction of SH-82 and development to the east of the highway, the alluvial fan formed a continuous apron at the terrace-valley side transition. Most of the upper parts of the fans have been removed by grading for these facilities. With the exception of the Executive Lot in the southern part of the proposed development, development is not being proposed on the alluvial fans. Swell-consolidation tests show that the fun deposits do not have a high collapse potential (settlement after wetting under a constant load) and are moderately compressible under increased loading after wetting. This indicates that the fans are geologically young landforms and are still potential sites of debris flow and flood deposition provided flows are able to reach these areas prior to deposition at SH-82 and the RFTA ROW benches. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 74 (5) Earthquakes HP details the faults present in the vicinity of the Project. They conclude that geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Carbondale evaporite collapse center in the vicinity of the Project Site but considering the nature of evaporite tectonics these fault are not considered capable generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young faults considered capable of generating large earthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift to the between 62 and 67 miles east of the Project Site. For firm rock sites with shear wave velocities of 2,500 fps in the upper 100 feet the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Map indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10% exceedance probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.22g has a 2% exceedance probability for a 50 year exposure time at the Project Site. This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. HP again concludes that at these distances large earthquakes on the two closest geologically young fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the Project Site. HP concludes that earthquake risk is consistent with other areas of the Roaring Fork Valley. b) Other Hazards (1) Floodplain As discussed under Site Features section (Section III.B) of this Analysis, the floodplains associated with both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek generally do not extend onto the Project Site except along small portions of Cattle Creek. The location of the floodplains in relationship to the Project Site and REC are shown on are shown on the Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 and Preliminary Plan Sheets, Series PRPN02 of the Drawing Package. The small areas of floodplain included on the Project Sites are all identified as being included in non-development areas of the REC. (2) Wildfire The Project Site is located within a low hazard fire hazard zone as depicted on Garfield County Wildfire Hazard maps prepared by Robert P. Hykys utilizing Colorado State Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Mapping Wildfire practices and as described in "Wildfire Hazard Mapping: Garfield County GIS Development Methodology", Garfield County, Colorado (1996). Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 75 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section identifies the potential impacts associated with natural hazards and the mitigation measures generally proposed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan to overcome the limitations associated with the identified hazard. Each hazard type is discussed below. This section is further supported by discussions and assessments contained in the Site Features section (Section III.B) and Soils section (Section III.C) of this Analysis. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the mitigation that is necessary to support development of the Project in a manner that is consistent with the applicable natural hazard sections of the ULUR (Sections 7-109 and 7-210). The pertinent parts of these sections of the ULUR are provided in the Natural Hazards and Development of Hazard Areas insets. Based on the findings of the Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix J) and the detailed mitigation proposed to deal with identified hazards (See Hazard Mitigation Plan), no significant risks from natural hazards are posed to the Project and the Project will not exacerbate the existing natural hazards. The Project therefore conforms to Section 7-109 of the ULUR. In addition, areas subject to alluvial fan and mudflow hazards have been effectively mitigated by grade breaks provided by the bench created by SH-82 and the RFTA ROW and additional protective measures as proposed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan for the single lot affected which includes a requirement for detailed assessment and disclosure in the PUD Guide. In addition, no development is proposed on slopes of 20% or greater and all unstable slopes are located outside the development area in open space or common areas not subject to development. Finally, as described below, where identified sinkholes cannot be fully avoided mitigation measures are proposed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan that will ensure that roads, utilities, and buildings are reasonably protected from damage. Based on these mitigation measures and avoidance of high and moderate hazard areas where practicable, the Project conforms to the requirements of Section 7-210 of the ULUR and no adverse impacts are anticipated in association with the geology and hazards. a) General Considerations The Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J) identifies several general considerations which are incorporated into the Hazard Mitigation Plan and PUD Guide. These include recommendations concerning foundations, floor slabs, underdrain systems, site grading, pavement subgrade, water soluble sulfates, and radiation potential. Radiation potential is discussed under the Radiation Hazard section (Section III.G.4) of this Analysis. Pavement subgrade and water soluble sulfates recommendations are discussed under the Soils section (Section III.C) of this Analysis. (1) Foundations Foundations are also discussed in the Soils section (Section III.C) of this Analysis. As noted in the Soils section, bearing strengths will Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 76 vary across the Project Site, but within the development areas can be expected to support residential structures on a spread footer foundation. The ability of the soils to support a structure may be compromised by the risk of ground subsidence associated with the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite and the potential for sinkhole development discussed below and the differential settlement that might occur under these conditions as well as grading operations that occurred during the Sanders Ranch PUD [See Soils section (Section III.C) of this Analysis for more information]. As such, HP generally recommends evaluation of building sites as development progresses and the use of relatively rigid foundations such as heavily reinforced slabs and deepened foundation walls to reduce the risk, where appropriate. These recommendations are incorporated into the PUD Guide and Hazard Mitigation Plan to help ensure reasonable implementation of the recommendations during development. With these mitigation measures, risk is reduced and the potential impacts associated with the underlying formation are considered non-adverse. (2) Floor Slabs HP Geotech has determined that slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils or compacted structural fill. The recommendations are further discussed in the Soils section (Section III.C) of this Analysis. HP Geotech notes that to reduce the effects of potential differential movement, non-structural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints and floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. In addition, a minimum 4-inch thick layer of free-draining gravel should underlie basement level floor slabs to facilitate drainage, where appropriate. These recommendations have been incorporated into the Hazard Mitigation Plan and PUD Guide to help ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented at the time of construction. (3) Underdrain Systems Although HP notes that groundwater was not encountered, perched groundwater may occur in the subsurface materials during heavy rain events. An underdrain system is recommended to protect below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, deep crawlspace and basement areas from wetting and hydrostatic pressure. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. These recommendations have been incorporated into the PUD Guide to help ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented at the time of construction. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 77 (4) Site Grading The preliminary site grading plan has been reviewed by HP Geotech (See Reclaimed Conditions, Series ES02 of the Drawing Package). A letter detailing their review and concurrence with the site grading plan based on the geotechnical and hazard conditions existing on the Project Site is provided in Appendix S. Site grading issues are further discussed under the Soils section (Section III.C) of this Analysis. Based on the HP Geotech review, the proposed site grading conforms to their recommendations and results in no adverse impacts with respect to hazard conditions. With respect to site grading, it is important, as noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J), to maintain positive drainage and limit infiltration of irrigation and stormwater on the Project Site to reduce impacts to structures, limit soil piping, and minimizes the water available to place the underlying evaporite into solution. As such, the Hazard Mitigation Plan recommends and the Reclamation Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan incorporate pond and major drainage ditch liners to reduce water loss to the subsurface in areas where water is concentrated by development. In addition, as discussed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and provided for by the landscaping section of the PUD Guide, irrigation systems serving common areas, parks, and other community lands will be managed using weather and planting data to minimize the water application rates to the optimal level. These additional water management efforts help to eliminate excess water from entering the subsurface and exacerbating any existing hazards in conformance with Section 7-109 of the ULUR. b) Sinkholes New sinkholes and reactivated sinkholes have the potential to severely damage buildings and other facilities. As in other areas of the Roaring Fork Valley and western Colorado, the potential impact associated with sinkholes is considered significant. However, through the implementation of proper design considerations and construction restrictions, the risk to buildings and other facilities can be managed or mitigated to levels that are not adverse to structures and development. HP Geotech has identified three risk management zones. The entire Project Site falls within a risk management zone established by HP Geotech (i.e., Zone 3, as shown on Figures 7-8 of the Geotechnical Engineering Study). HP considers the risk that a new sinkhole will develop at a specific building site is low during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development. HP Geotech notes that the risk does not appear greater than the risk at existing buildings in the Towns of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale and along the Roaring Fork River valley between these two towns. Within this area, HP recommends that evidence of possible sinkhole related problems should be Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 78 assessed and concurrent investigations completed during grading and building site development. While not recommending against conventional spread footing foundation systems, HP Geotech indicates that deep foundation systems or shallow rigid foundation systems present a lower risk of potential building damage should an undetected subsurface void develop into a sinkhole after construction. The accepted foundation mitigation approaches based on field investigations are outlined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Zone 1 represents an 80-foot buffer around where sinkholes were observed in the field or on aerial photographs. In the opinion of HP Geotech, the risk of new sinkholes or existing sinkhole reactivation in Zone 1 is high. Buildings and movement sensitive facilities should not be considered in Zone 1. With mitigation, roads can be considered in Zone 1. A few roads are currently planned in Zone 1. Mitigation for roads and utilities is discussed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted as part of the REC rezoning and subdivision applications. Road mitigation might include ground improvement by compaction grouting or structural bridging, while utility mitigation may include bridging. Additional subsurface exploration at the specific road and utility alignment will need to be completed prior to final design and final platting to evaluate if the proposed mitigations are appropriate. Zone 2 represents a risk area similar to Zone 3 in that no field or aerial photographic evidence has been identified indicating the presence of sinkholes. However, identified sinkholes show a trend toward these areas. So, as in Zone 3 additional geotechnical work should be completed prior to final plat and design of buildings and facilities in these areas to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are employed. c) Steep Terrace Escarpments Development within the REC does not encroach into the steep escarpments. As a result, the potential impacts are not adverse. The steep escarpments are not suitable for building sites and buildings should be set back from the top of the escarpments. The steep escarpments shown on the PUD Plan, Series PUD02 of the Drawing Package include a setback at the top of the escarpments based on the projection of a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope from the base of the escarpment and a setback from the top of the projected slope of one-third the escarpment height. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) [discussed in the Reclamation Plan section (Section III.J) of this Analysis] and Hazard Mitigation Plan propose actions to stabilize these areas and avoid further degradation to the RFC Conservation Easement and Project Site. Approval of the reclamation actions proposed within the RFC Conservation Easement will be sought from the RFC prior to undertaking such actions. As proposed, these reclamation actions could have benefit to the environment and the Project Site. CI's ability to undertake these improvements within the RFC Conservation Easement is dependent on the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 79 RFC. If the RFC does not approve these actions, more limited actions will be taken within the Project Site in accordance with the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). d) Active Stream Bank Erosion No adverse impacts on the Project are associated with areas of active stream bank erosion. These areas are located entirely offsite within the RFC Conservation Easement. While these areas do impact the steep terrace escarpments, they do not generally place the Project at risk. As a result, no mitigation is specifically required, or proposed to support or necessary to reduce risks to development of the Project. However, as with the steep terraces, CI has proposed to the RFC that some mitigation be done to these areas to preserve the conservation values within the RFC Conservation Easement. As recommended by HP Geotech stream bank stabilization with rip rap is proposed as part of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0). If the erosion is left uncontrolled it could lead to escarpment instability and cause releases of sediment and damage to the Project open spaces. Approval of the reclamation actions proposed within the RFC Conservation Easement will be sought from the RFC prior to undertaking such actions. As proposed, these reclamation actions could have benefit to the environment and the Project Site. CI's ability to undertake these improvements within the RFC Conservation Easement is dependent on the RFC. If the RFC does not approve these actions, more limited actions will be taken within the Project Site in accordance with the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). e) Debris Flows and Floods HP Geotech notes that conventional surface drainage design should be adequate to account for sheet flow on the terrace surface down slope of the fans. Grading for SH-82 and the development to the east of the highway has substantially modified flow patterns on the fans. This grading should cause debris deposition at the grade change between the road cuts and road platform and reduce the extent of future deposition on the fan and risk to structures located thereon. Designs on the Executive Lot should incorporate the mitigation measures proposed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. By implementation of the proposed mitigation measures along with the existing conditions, the potential impacts of debris flow and flooding is not adverse. f) Earthquakes No adverse potential impacts are anticipated in association with earthquakes. HP Geotech suggests that traditional regional earthquake standards should be applied at the Project Site and that no special considerations or mitigation is required. Buildings should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The soil profiles at the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 80 Project Site should be considered as Class D, stiff soil sites as described in the 2006 International Building Code unless site specific shear wave velocity studies show otherwise. Adequate protection is provided by the Garfield County Building Code and no additional limitations or special considerations are necessary to protect structures from earthquakes. g) Floodplain No additional mitigation measures are necessary as areas prone to flooding are located in open space or common areas and are undevelopable under the PUD Guide. The bridge over Cattle Creek is designed to pass the 100- year flood and provide for the 500-year event without damage to properties or raising the flood elevation (See Project Engineering Design Report and Bridge Plan and Section, Series S01 of the Drawing Package). Utility crossings will be designed to protect against scour when proposed to be buried and protected against flood damage when hung from structures (See Sewage Collection and Water Supply and Distribution Plan, Series SW01-07 of the Drawing Package). Any actions within the floodplain are subject to Garfield County Floodplain Regulations (Section 4-411 and 7-701 of the ULUR) which provide for protection of structures and damage to properties in association with floodplain development actions. No specific additional mitigation is necessary. The designs of all facilities within the floodplain meet or exceed the ULUR requirements. Floodplain standards are further discussed in the Site Features section (Section III.B) of this Analysis. h) Wildfire Hazard The Project is not located within a wildfire hazard area. Based on this finding and that the design conforms to all International Fire Code (2003) requirements concerning building access, fire flows, and road design, in accordance with Section 6-202.I. of the ULUR fire hazards will not be created or increased E. WATER SUPPLY AND ADEQUACY OF SUPPLY This section assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed water supply. The water supply is assessed in detail in the Water Supply Plan. This section draws its information and conclusions from the Water Supply Plan. This section of this Analysis only addresses legal supply and source. Section 4-502.E.6 of the ULUR only appears to require that this Analysis address the requirements of Section 7-104, which is not applicable to this Project since the development application is not considered an exemption. In the case of this Project, the water supply for the Project must meet the requirements of Sections 6-202.M and 7-105 of the ULUR. The Water Supply inset contains the pertinent provision of Sections 6-202.M and 7-105 of the ULUR. In addition to the water supply requirements, water treatment and distribution systems are also necessary to providing water to the Project. The treatment and distribution needs are addressed by the Water Treatment and Distribution System Design Report and Raw Water Supply and Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 81 Distribution Plan. These documents provide evidence that a water treatment and distribution system meeting the criteria of Sections 5-501G.11.d, 5-501G.11.f, 5- 502C.13, 6-301.C.7.m, 7-105, and 7-106 of the ULUR is available or can be designed and constructed to serve the Project; and that the findings required by Section 6-202.M of the ULUR can be made in approving the Project. General ULUR Standard of Review: Water Supply "Section 6-202.M Adequate Water Supply. An Adequate Water Supply will be demonstrated in compliance with the standards in Section 7-105." "Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply. An adequate water supply plan shall be required for any preliminary or final approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit development, limited impact or major impact review, development or site plan, or similar application for new construction. This section shall apply to all development permits which require a water demand in an amount of at least 8 (eight) single-family equivalents where 1 (one) single-family equivalent equals 350 gallons of water per day. A. Authority. The Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to §29-20-103, et. al. C.R.S., shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that the applicant own or have acquired the proposed water supply or constructed the related infrastructure at the time of the application." In accordance with the Water Supply Plan, no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the use of the proposed legal water supply and identified sources. The proposed river water diversions and alluvial pumping are balanced by the required augmentation provided by the water rights and water allotment contract proposed for use by the Project. The proposed potable and raw water supplies and sources are adequate to support the Project and conform to the requirements of Section 7-105 of the ULUR. 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The following is drawn from the letter report prepared by Water Resources Engineer Michael J. Erion, P.E. of Resources Engineering, Inc. [Water Supply Plan, Appendix B ("Resources Engineering Report")] which presents the water rights and water supply plan for the Project. a) Potable Water Supply and Source As documented in the Resources Engineering Report, the legal water supply for the potable water system is based on the water court decrees in Case Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 82 No. 01CW187, 07CW164 (pending) and 08CW198 (pending) and on Water Allotment Contract No. 381b with the Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BCWD") for a total of 74.9 acre feet of water per year. In Case No. 01CW187, a legal water supply for 349.55 EQR's and 3 acres of irrigation was adjudicated. The decree utilizes relies upon 62.6 acre feet per year of the Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") contract water for diversion at the RFWSD Aspen Glen Well Nos. 1-7, Coryell Ranch Well Nos. 1-14, and the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion. The pending decree in Case No. 07CW164 provides for an additional 850.45 EQR's and 4 acres of irrigation. Points of diversion for include RFWSD at the Robertson Ditch, Posy Pump and Pipeline, RBC Well Field, and the RBC Roaring Fork Diversion. The pending decree in Case No. 08CW198 provides for the 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation to be diverted at the additional points of diversion identified in Case No. 07CW164. River Edge Colorado has amended BWCD Contract No. 381 for a total of 75.4 acre feet as required is sufficient to provide augmentation water under all three water court decrees. The current Project demands 375 of the 1200 EQRs adjudicated or in pending decrees. The potable water supply will be provided by one or more of the following sources: the RFWSD alluvial wells located in the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch subdivision if the Project is served by the RFWSD, and surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River using the Robertson Ditch Rose Ranch Enlargement, Posy Pump and Pipeline (Iron Bridge Subdivision), or the RBC Roaring Fork Diversion (River Edge Colorado) water rights if the Project is served by the RFWSD or alternative system as described in the Water Supply Plan and Water Treatment and Distribution Design Report. Resource Engineering, Inc. notes that the yield of the physical water supply from the RFWSD alluvial wells and from the Roaring Fork River are not affected by dry year hydrologic conditions. b) Irrigation Water Also as documented in the Resources Engineering Report, the Glenwood Ditch is decreed for 50 cfs for irrigation uses and Staton Ditch is decreed for 5.18 cfs for irrigation uses. The water court Case No. W-2206 for the Unocal Sanders Ranch determined that the historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which the Project Site represents approximately 150 acres of the total irrigated areas. The physical source of water will be from the Roaring Fork River via diversion into the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek via diversion into the Staton Ditch. Historically, the Glenwood Ditch has had a full water supply, even in critically dry years. The Project's buildout irrigation use is estimated at approximate fifty percent of the 57.6% of the overall irrigation water available to the Project. Water delivery will utilize a raw water distribution system feed by the Glenwood Ditch. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 83 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES In accordance with the Water Supply Plan, no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the use of the proposed water supply. River water diversions and alluvial pumping are balanced by the required augmentation provided by the water rights proposed for use by the Project. The water rights cases have or will determine that the proposed water supply has no potential impacts on senior water rights. F. GROUNDWATER SUPPLY AND AQUIFER RECHARGE This section identifies and addressed the issues associated with groundwater supply and aquifer recharge associated with this Project including any potential impacts and mitigation. Several Sections of the ULUR address groundwater issues and concerns. Generally, the ULUR sections have to do with protection of groundwater from pollutants associated with surface and subsurface development activities. Section 4-502.E.7 provides the most general guidance with respect to groundwater effects (see Groundwater inset). This Analysis has determined that the Project will have no adverse impacts on groundwater supply, recharge and quality as required by the ULUR. The Project is in conformance with Section 4-502.E.7 and all other pollution prevention standards governing groundwater. General ULUR Standard of Review: Groundwater "Section 4-502.E.7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater." 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by HP Geotech and provided in Appendix J, the groundwater in the area is generally present in the alluvium immediately associated with the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek or at depth in association with underlying Eagle Valley Evaporate. HP Geotech notes that groundwater is generally deep in the deposits making up nearly all of the Project Site. "Free water was not encountered in the relatively shallow borings" and groundwater levels measured in the borings were between depths of about 39 to 77 feet (Geotechnical Engineering Study, pg. 10). As noted in the Site Characteristics section (Section III.B) and Geology and Hazards section (Section III.D) of this Analysis, locally perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff as a result of clay lenses deposits within the surficial materials on the Project Site (Geotechnical Engineering Study, pg. 16). Shallow groundwater is identified as being likely in the lower Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 84 river terrace which stands about 5 feet above and the higher river terrace stands about 13 feet above the Roaring Fork River (Geotechnical Engineering Study, pg. 6). None of the development area is located within these deposits. The Colorado Division of Water Resources ("CDWR") reports that several wells are located to the east and north of the Project Site where water service is not currently available from the RFWSD. The wells to the east are generally deep wells that tap bedrock aquifers while the wells to the west of the Roaring Fork River and north of the Project Site are generally shallower wells in the alluvial aquifer associated with the Roaring Fork River and subbasins entering from the eastern hills. The locations of the wells in the vicinity of the Project Site are provided in Appendix T. As shown by the map, wells located east of the Project Site are generally located up gradient and unaffected by Project Site surface activities. Wells to the west are generally fed by water from the western side of the valley and are also generally unaffected by activities at the Project Site since the Roaring Fork River generally acts as a hydrologic break. Wells to the north of the Project Site are generally located down gradient are the wells most likely to be affected by activities at the Project Site. Wells in close proximity to the Project Site could be affected by excessive pumping rates at the Project Site if deep alluvial wells were proposed for use. Currently, the Water Supply Plan identifies shallow alluvial wells adjacent to the Roaring Fork River as a less environmentally damaging alternative for the design for the water supply diversion. At the proposed location and depth, the well is not anticipated to have an influence on any surrounding wells as discussed in the Water Supply Plan. The control of potential pollutants onsite is addressed by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Landscape Plan and Raw Water Supply and Distribution Plan provided detailed information with respect to proposed storm drainage and irrigation systems. Storm drainage is proposed to be collected and concentrated by curb and gutter to storm sewer and surface drainage systems where it will be discharged through lined surface ditches and pipes to lined water quality detention facilities. These collection systems are designed to ensure water is treated in accordance with Colorado Department of Health and the Environment ("CDPHE") standards prior to delivery to the receiving streams and to generally limit infiltration to levels consistent with pre- development conditions. All systems are design in accordance with Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Standards as discussed in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Based on the climatic conditions at the Project Site and discussed in the Site Features section (Section III.B) of this Analysis, the Project Site generally does not contribute significantly to groundwater recharge as evidenced by the water balance and irrigation requirements detailed in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). Although some subsurface water does likely percolate through the soil media to the alluvial groundwater aquifer particularly near the edges of the Project Site in the lower river terraces and during excessive flood irrigation associated with past agricultural activities, these influences on the groundwater Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 85 body are clearly limited. The Landscape Plans and PUD Guide provide for controlling the water application rates on the Project Site with climatic monitoring controls so as to provide water at rates consistent with the needs of the vegetative cover thereby eliminating waste and minimizing influence to groundwater. As detailed in the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Plan and Sewage Collection Design Report, Project sewage will be collected and transmitted to a centralized sewage treatment facility for treatment and discharge to the Roaring Fork River. No onsite sewage disposal systems are proposed. The discharge will meet the requirements of the CDPHE discharge standards. As discussed in the Water Supply section (Section III.E) of this Analysis. The Project could utilize RFWSD alluvial groundwater sources as one of the sources of supply, in addition to the surface water sources identified. The assessment in the augmentation plan associated with the adjudication of the water rights for the Project has determined that the surface water connection associated with the RFWSD wells is adequate from which to supply the Project with the augmentation water provided by the water rights without detrimental effect to the aquifer. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project has no adverse impacts on groundwater supply or aquifer recharge. The Project will not utilize groundwater except as provided by the RFWSD wells and discussed in the Water Supply Plan. No well will be allowed or requested on the Project Site for the purposes of serving the Project. Water associated with the Project is provided from the Roaring Fork River, or related sources, as described in the Water Supply Plan such that the augmentation water provided by the water rights is sufficient to eliminate any negative consequence to the alluvial aquifer. Wells to the east and south are located up gradient from the Project Site and are unlikely to be effected by the Project while wells to the west are hydraulically separated from the Project Site by the Roaring Fork River. Wells north of the Project Site could see influences from the Project from sources of contamination, if any, but are unlikely to see detrimental effects in association with aquifer recharge since the Project Site has little to no influence on groundwater recharge. Potential pollution sources are reasonably controlled by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and no subsurface discharges of sewage are proposed. G. ENVIRONMENT 1. FLORA AND FAUNA This section assesses the potential impacts of the proposed Project on biological resources. Resources are identified for the 160-acre Project Site along with resources immediately adjacent to the Project Site that could be potentially affected or influenced by the Project. This assessment of existing conditions and potential impacts is based on the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 86 prepared by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services included in Appendix K. Critical habitat assessments are provided under the Critical Wildlife Habitat section (Section III.G.3) of this Analysis. Section 7-202 of ULUR addresses the protection of wildlife habitat in association with land development activities. This assessment of existing conditions and potential impacts, and proposed mitigation has been developed in consideration of the requirements of the applicable sections of the ULUR. Based on the findings of this section, the Project conforms to the requirements of Section 7-202 of the ULUR and will have insignificant adverse impacts on Flora and Fauna. General ULUR Standard of Review: Wildlife Habitat Provisions "Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The applicant shall consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife or a qualified wildlife biologist in determining how best to avoid or mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat areas. Methods may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following. A. Buffers. Visual and sound buffers shall be created through effective use of topography, vegetation, and similar measures to screen structures and activity areas from habitat areas. B. Locational Controls of Land Disturbance. Land disturbance located so that wildlife is not forced to use new migration corridors, and is not exposed to significantly increased predation, interaction with vehicles, intense human activity, or more severe topography or climate. C. Preservation of Native Vegetation. 1. Vegetation Utilized by Wildlife. Proposed land use changes are designed to preserve large areas of vegetation utilized by wildlife for food and cover, based upon recommendations by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2. Removal and Replacement of Native Vegetation. When native vegetation must be removed within habitat areas, it is replaced with native and/ or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting post-disturbance land use. 3. Removal of Noxious Weeds. Vegetation removed to control noxious weeds is not required to be replaced, unless the site requires revegetation to prevent other noxious weeds from becoming established. D. Habitat Compensation. Where disturbance of critical wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, the developer may be required to acquire and permanently protect existing habitat to compensate for habitat that is lost to development. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 87 E. Domestic Animal Controls. The County may require protective covenants or deed restrictions as necessary to control domestic animals by fencing or kenneling, and specific penalties for failure to comply." a) Existing and Proposed Conditions (1) Habitat Areas and General Wildlife Use The Project Site and adjacent lands are located in two habitat areas described by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. These include an Upland Habitat area and Riparian Habitat area. The Upland Habitat area constitutes a majority of the area being utilized by the Project. The Riparian Habitat areas are generally located adjacent to the Project Site in the RFC Conservation Easement and are only crossed by an access road and utilities as part of this Project. The following description is extracted from the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (pgs. 8-9, 12-13, and 39). The Upland Habitats are highly damaged from over 80 years of agricultural use and grading for the Bair Chase project in 2005. During this process, topsoils on the property were salvaged and stored in large stockpiles on the property. These topsoil stockpiles are currently dominated with a variety of ruderal early seral plant species. While CI began treating noxious weeds in 2007 some noxious weeds persist including kochia (Bassia sieversiana), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). CI has also began seeding topsoil stockpiles and graded areas with a temporary seed mix, consisting of native grasses and annual grasses to increase soil cover, reduce erosion, and help reclaim areas from weeds. The graded areas are essentially bare, and have very low aerial cover of plant species. Current vegetation cover on the graded areas is approximately 5 to 15%, with the densest vegetation being stands of cheatgrass and kochia. Moderate to large cobble-sized material dominate the surface soils stratum. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services notes that wildlife use of the upland habitats is currently limited by vegetation and foraging abilities. The most commonly observed species on the property is the Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans), which has colonies near the railroad grade. The presence of this squirrel likely attracts incidental foraging by great-horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red fox, gray fox, and coyote; however predator use of the property is likely incidental, as predators would likely prefer to hunt and forage on surrounding higher quality habitats. Bird use in the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 88 uplands is limited to a few species that can utilize the existing habitat conditions. This is generally limited to mourning dove, meadowlark and mountain bluebird, however many other species may be observed within the uplands as they pass through the property to other more suitable habitats in the area. The Riparian Habitat areas along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek are dominated by mixed deciduous overstories, with understories dominated by noxious weeds and non-native agricultural grasses. Overstories within the riparian areas include narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), river birch (Betula fontinalis), alder (Alnus incana) hawthorne (Cratagus rivularis & C. saligna), boxelder (Acer negundo), Rocky Mountain juniper (Sabina osteosperma), and intermittent ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Many of the cottonwoods were established in association with the flood irrigation practices. Therefore many of the cottonwood trees in the area have become decadent, and are dying off due to the cessation of flood irrigation. Riparian understory vegetation is dominated by canarygrass (Phalaroides arundinacea), and agricultural cultivars such as orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromis inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense), and native shrubs such as skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica sbsp trilobata) and wild rose (Rosa woodsii). Noxious weeds include common tansy, field bindweed, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scotch thistle, plumeless thistle, common mullein (Verbascum thapsis), and Russian olive trees (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Cattle Creek supports canarygrass along its entire length. The general conditions of the understory in riparian systems along lower Cattle Creek and along the Roaring Fork River are very poor due to high levels of disturbance resulting in noxious weeds and a prevalence of aggressive, agricultural grasses and canarygrass. During wetland delineations in July of 2010, the Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was identified in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The REC property does not have any orchid populations, and otherwise potential habitats outside of the banks of the Roaring Fork River have already been compromised by non-native grasses and weeds which have persisted in the riparian areas. Cattle Creek was heavily impacted in the past by grazing practices. The eastern section of Cattle Creek crossing the Project Site is dominated by non-native species, including common tansy and canary reed-grass. The current habitat condition is poor with little habitat diversity. Most species observed in this area were upland bird species and common riparian bird species were lacking due to Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 89 the paucity of structural diversity of habitats. Nighttime use of the area by deer, elk, and other species is likely. Lower Cattle Creek (near the confluence with the Roaring Fork) is of a better habitat quality and condition including various shrub and tree plant species and more native vegetation. The understory vegetation is dominated by graminoid species, which somewhat diminishes the habitat conditions. More wildlife species utilize this area due to widespread wetland habitats, and the structural diversity provided by taller shrubs (e.g., silver buffaloberry [Shepherdia argenteus]). The Roaring Fork River supports diverse riparian woodlands and shrublands. Most of the trees along the river are somewhat decadent, and there is a general lack of younger trees along the river. A couple of the larger ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) trees along the river are currently providing nesting for a small to moderately sized Great Blue Heron rookery. One of the three rookery trees fell down into the Roaring Fork in the spring of 2009 due to high springtime flows and bank scour on the western bank. The riparian habitats along the river provide habitat for a number of bird species, as well as habitat for many mammal species. (2) Specific Species of Special Importance Species of key consideration and discussion in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report include mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron, and Lewis's woodpecker. In addition, the Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was identified in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River as discussed previously. No critical wildlife habitat areas were identified within the Project Site by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. However, five species subject to the critical wildlife habitat definition are known to utilize the Project Site. These species include the mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and Lewis's woodpecker. According to the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, the Project Site is within Elk Winter Range and adjacent to Elk Severe Winter Range east of SH-82 (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 35). The Project Site is also located between Mule Deer Winter Range to the west of the Roaring Fork River and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range to the east of SH-82 (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 17). As a result, none of the Project Site is classified within an Elk or Mule Deer habitat type considered critical habitat. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 90 The Project Site supports low-density year-round levels of mule deer use, but does not support mule deer winter range(s), but habitats on adjacent properties near the Roaring Fork River, which contain shrubby vegetation, would likely meet criteria as Winter Range (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 17). Deer do utilize the flat terraces despite the lack of quality vegetation, but there is definitely more deer use closer to the RFC Conservation Area. The use of Rio Grande Trail has likely deterred deer use of areas within 100 meters of the trail (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report pg. 17). Elk primarily use the Project Site as a loafing area since the property only supports marginal foraging opportunities due to the scraping off of topsoil by the Sanders Ranch development. The Project Site supports reasonable numbers of elk during the winter months. Rocky Mountain in Ecological Services notes that during the past few winters, due to very marginal grazing opportunities, many of the elk likely moved to other winter ranges in the area for feeding, but surprisingly high numbers of elk persisted on the Project Site through the winter, likely utilizing the property as a loafing area during the daytime hours, or when snows covered foraging opportunities on other properties (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 35). Elk may have simply used the Project Site for loafing in between foraging bouts on other neighboring properties where the foraging was better, but human disturbances and stressors were higher. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail for winter use during 2009 introduced daily walkers, dog walkers, and sometimes bicyclists and cross country skiers through the middle of this property while elk were still using the area for loafing and winter range. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail combined with the construction of the elk fence along SH-82 has noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 35). As previously noted, a heron rookery is present in the RFC Conservation Easement adjacent to the Project Site. Heron generally arrive in the valley in mid March. At this time, 2 ponderosa pine trees comprise the heronry (one tree fell down in 2009 due to bank erosion on the Roaring Fork River), with the one tree on the east bank of the Roaring Fork River having approximately 10 nests, and the tree on the western side of the river having 15 nests (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 41). This heronry is fairly productive given the limited size of area it occupies, when compared to the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (9 nests in 2008) and Woody Creek (15 nests in 2008) (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 41). The heron rookery is located immediately adjacent to the Project Site and meets the definition of critical habitat. The heron rookery along with the potential impacts Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 91 is discussed in more detail in the Critical Wildlife Habitat section (Section III.G.3.) of this Analysis. With respect to the bald eagle, the closest bald eagle nest site is located on the Aspen Glen subdivision. Nesting at the site has been successful for the past 5 years. The report finds that bald eagles primarily use the RFC Conservation Easement adjacent to the Project Site for roosting on trees near the river and hunting for fish. The Aspen Glen bald eagles are believed to be the only bald eagles utilizing the area (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 47). The bald eagle utilizes the areas immediately adjacent to the Project Site for roosting which is considered a component of the critical habitat. The bald eagle is discussed in more detail in the Critical Wildlife Habitat section (Section III.G.3.) of this Analysis. Finally, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services notes that the Project Site and RFC Conservation Easement are home to the Lewis's Woodpecker. Lewis’s Woodpeckers are migratory, arriving in breeding and summer ranges in May, and departing again in early to mid-September. Lewis’s Woodpeckers from the Project Site likely migrate westward towards the lower Uncompahgre, Gunnison, and Colorado River valleys, but some birds may migrate as far south as northern Mexico. Their migration is slow and is diurnal. Important aspects of breeding habitat include an open canopy, a brushy understory offering ground cover, dead or downed woody material, available perches, and abundant insects. Three principal habitats are open ponderosa pine forest; open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood; and logged or burned pine forest (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 48). The Lewis's Woodpecker is considered by the local United State Forest Service ("USFS") as a sensitive species. The habitat available adjacent to the Project Site is not considered critical habitat pursuant to the applicable definition. b) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses the potential impacts of the Project on the flora and fauna and mitigation measures necessary to minimize those potential impacts. The section discusses general potential impacts and species specific effects. Any species determined to fall under the critical habitat definition is discussed under the Critical Wildlife Habitat section (Section III.G.3) of the Analysis pursuant to the definition provided in that section. Based on this definition, potential impacts on the bald eagle and heron are discussed in Section III.G.3 of this Analysis. Based on the mitigation measures included within the REC PUD Guide and CCRS including the proposed Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), the Project should have no adverse impacts on the existing flora and fauna located on Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 92 or utilizing the Project Site. The Project also conforms to the Section 7-202 of the ULUR. (1) General Habitat Considerations and Mitigation Measures (a) REC Habitat As previously note, habitat at the Project Site is highly degraded. Soils have been stripped from a majority of the Project Site and noxious weeds are abundant. CI proposes a Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) that institutes pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) of the Project Site with both long-term and interim habitat improvement measures. Open Space areas will be reclaimed using local native plant materials, initially focusing on grasses and some sagebrush recruitment. Aggressive noxious weed abatement program will also be implemented in accordance with Rocky Mountain Ecological Services recommendations on page 57 of the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report as provided in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U). In areas to be developed in the future, agricultural and landscape species will be planted to help hold the soils in the interim condition and provide landscaping for future use within REC. These permanent and interim measures would provide beneficial effects to the Project Site and immediately adjacent RFC Conservation Easement. While the Project results in the overall loss of wildlife habitat, the enhancements to the RFC Conservation Easement provided by the naturalized open space buffer and early and complete reclamation measures undertaken in association with the Project result in beneficial effects. As a result of the habitat improvement and strategic locations of Project open space and common areas, the Project is likely to have insignificant potential impacts on flora and fauna particularly when compared to the existing conditions. (b) Cattle Creek Utility Crossing The Cattle Creek utility crossing is proposed to be located in coordination with the bridge crossing serving the southern portion of the REC. Several utilities will be collocated. An open cut will be utilized to cross Cattle Creek. As previously discussed, a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit will be required to undertake the crossing. Cattle Creek is damaged along its length through the Project Site as detailed in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report. The environmental damage to wetlands associated with the utility cut will be temporary. The area impacted is less than 1 acre and will be restored following the restoration Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 93 requirements of the ACOE and CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Impacts associated with the crossing are insignificant and are reasonably and appropriately mitigated under the CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit. No additional mitigation is proposed or necessary. (c) Mitigation Measures Rocky Mountain Ecological Services identifies a series of mitigation measures that would assist in reducing the potential impacts of the Project on flora and fauna. These recommendations include (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 50-53): Lighting: Indirect nighttime lighting of the open space areas and transient lighting from roads and homes (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) is not recommended. This recommendation is implemented by the Lighting Plan and Schedules, Series LT01 of the Drawing Package and the PUD Guide standards governing lighting. Lighting of open spaces beyond the building envelope areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright back-yard lights illuminating open space areas). This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide standards governing lighting. Tall vegetation should be planted 10’ off of roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas in order to minimize unintended “spotlighting”. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide landscape standards. Fences along the roads should not be allowed. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide fencing standards. Cut and/or fill slopes along the roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution. Cut and fill slopes area Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 94 minimized along roads and grades facilitate wildlife movements as shown on the Streets, Trails, Walkways and Bikeways Plan, Series C01-07 of the Drawing Package. Trails within REC and continuous open space areas should be closed during the sensitive deer and elk winter season (December 1 through March 31). This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Dogs should be on a leash year-round, aside from within designated dog-parks or within enclosed yards. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Fences within Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors should generally not occur. No fences are proposed in these areas and fencing such areas is outside the jurisdiction of the Project. As the open space areas are used as winter range (and severe winter range), reclamation of road cuts, infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles. This recommendation is implemented by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and PUD Guide Landscape Standards. Noxious weeds should be treated bi- annually in order to minimize their spread and impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities. This recommendation is implemented by the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), PUD Guide Landscape Standards and CCRS. As required by Garfield County, dogs will be limited to one per dwelling unit (plus young up to 3 months old). This restriction should also apply to cats. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Dogs should not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 95 unless under leash control. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Any fenced enclosures constructed for the overnight maintenance of dogs or cats must be within property lines. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide Loose dogs should be prohibited. This includes dogs owned by contractors, subcontractors, delivery personnel, home owners and their guests. Construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Provide a dog park away from big game areas. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Keep cats indoors. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Garbage including food related garage associated construction workers should be placed in bear-proof dumpsters, individual bear-proof trash containers, or kept in trash cans inside closed buildings. Trash cans should not be left outside overnight prior to trash collection. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Pets should not be fed outside. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and removed altogether during the fall months (September through late November). Catchment basins shall be used underneath bird feeders to catch seed. All bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, should be hung away from any window or deck, be at least 10’ from the ground, and be suspended between two trees or posts. This Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 96 recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Compost piles shall be forbidden, unless they are used in centralized, wildlife-proof areas. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner’s brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW. This recommendation is implemented by the CCRS. Community gardens and orchards shall be fenced to keep out (or discourage) bears and prevent elk & deer damage. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. A 200 meter activity buffer will be annually placed around trees with active heron nests. This buffer would not be applicable to empty or unused nests or roost trees. From March 1 through August 1, no external construction activities or new building erection, crane use, or trail use/construction may occur within the 200 meter buffer area. The exact location of the buffer area will be set annually by a site visit to heron nesting trees by an accredited wildlife biologist during the spring months. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide. All persons within the development should be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing wildlife. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. The POA will have the right to locally restrict wildlife from sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected would not restrict free movement of wildlife but would be used only in small, isolated areas Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 97 to help direct wildlife and/or people. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. Soft trails around the property (especially those trails on the western side of the development) should be closed during the winter months (December 1-March 31). This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. The soft trail nearest occupied heronry trees should be closed from March 1 through August 1. However, if herons abandon the heronry there would be no need for such a restriction. This recommendation is implemented by the PUD Guide and CCRS. With the implementation of all the recommendations, habitat mitigation for flora and fauna has been achieved and potential impacts to flora and fauna are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The potential impact of the Project to flora and fauna is considered insignificant. (2) Mule Deer As stated in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, "the development would not occur in highly suitable habitat for deer, and most of the development would be placed on areas devoid of topsoil with very sparse vegetation. No quality mule deer habitat would be directly impacted" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 21). Further the report states, that "with the reclamation of 40.3 acres of currently poor-quality habitats, some increased mule deer habitat will be created around the edges of the development deer use is expected to continue" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 21). The REC is designed to leave a buffer strip between high quality habitat off (i.e., RFC Conservation Easement) and the development to support continued deer use off within the RFC Conservation Easement. Although existing habitats on the property are in generally poor condition, the REC would reduce some habitat availability, but have negligible impacts on deer populations given the low carrying capacity of habitats on the Project Site (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 21). Rocky Mountain Ecological Services concludes that "deer would be able to continue to utilize the dense, shrubby cottonwood forests and riparian areas as security cover, and retention of these areas and avoidance of these Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 98 areas by roads, homesites, trails and other uses would allow for deer to use the area after development" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report pg. 21). There will be some level of indirect effects from increased human activity adjacent to higher quality habitats. The indirect impacts from new levels of human activity, noise, dogs, etc. may reduce deer carrying capacities within the areas, but this will be largely dependent upon REC and residents following the mitigation measures included in the PUD Guide and CCRS including trail closures and dogs control measures (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 21). The soft trails proposed to allow residents to enjoy open space areas along the western side of the property will keep deer from fully utilizing reclaimed habitat areas during the daylight hours. Dogs although required to be on a leash or within enclosures will likely frighten off deer to some degree, and some dog/deer conflicts are still possible. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services recommended the placement of a dog park within the subdivision away from higher-quality habitats (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 21). CI has proposed to allow the temporary dog parks within undeveloped areas during the development of the Project and provide for permanent dog parks in Tracts CD and RH in accordance with the PUD Guide. Deer use of habitats within open space areas and the RFC Conservation Easement will continue and even possibly expand with the proposed habitat restoration and proposed access controls, but will most likely be mostly at night. "Given the current land conditions of the project area, and available habitat on the property and plans to improve habitat, this project would likely have negative impacts to individual deer from time to time, but would not have significant impacts to mule deer populations and no substantive change in deer carrying capacity" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 22). As a result of the inclusion of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project should have insignificant or no adverse impacts on mule deer. (3) Elk The REC property is only used during the winter months by elk, and provides relatively poor nutritional foraging opportunities at this time. The installation of the game fence along SH-82 by CDOT, and the opening of the Rio Grande Trail further reduced the accessibility and utilization of the Project Site by elk (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, Pg. 36). Rocky Mountain Ecological Services concludes that "wintering elk will likely avoid the phase being actively developed on the property during construction. As elk are not on the property from April through November, activities during this time would have no impact on elk" (Wildlife & Vegetation Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 99 Assessment Report, pg. 35). Elk would still likely use some habitats on the Project Site and the RFC Conservation Easement, but the proximity of homes, human activities and dogs would likely reduce the utilization of otherwise available habitats. This project, in and of itself, only impacts a fairly small area of winter range and has relatively minimal impact to winter ranges for elk herds in the area. (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 36-37). Standard fencing, animal control, trail closure measures are recommended to limit potential impacts. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services recommend specifically keeping the soft-surface trails proposed on the western side of the development closed from December 1 through March 31 (or until the elk leave the area in the spring) to help with potential utilization of otherwise available habitats. These measures are included in the PUD Guide and CCRS. As a result of the inclusion of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project should have insignificant or no adverse impacts on elk. (4) Lewis's Woodpecker Rocky Mountain Ecological Services concludes in the Wildlife & vegetation Assessment Report that REC "would have minor negative indirect impacts on Lewis’s Woodpecker, but there should be no direct impacts on habitat or long-term ability for Lewis’s Woodpecker to persist on the site" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 49). REC avoids activities within the RFC Conservation Easement which represents the existing habitat adjacent to the Project Site. Lewis’s Woodpeckers may be negatively impacted by human activities, including construction. These activities may preclude some nesting activities near the Project Site. However, this is a short-term effect, and it is likely that most woodpecker activities would continue to occur within the area (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 49). The greatest long-term potential impact to Lewis’s Woodpecker is the continued mortality of cottonwood trees resulting from the cessation of flood irrigation practices. Once trees within REC become large enough to provide cavity nesting habitats, it is likely that the Lewis’s Woodpecker would begin to utilize these habitats (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 49). The Project should have no adverse impacts on the Lewis's Woodpecker. 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, HISTORIC RESOURCES This section describes the archaeological, cultural, paleontological, and historic resources on or near the Project Site and the potential impacts of the Project on the identified resources. A formal Section 106 review is not required in Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 100 association with the Project. However, Section 7-211 of the ULUR addresses the need to avoid impacts to historic resources and Section 7-405.C.2.d of the ULUR which encourages that park dedications be utilized as a means to protect historic features. A simple review was conducted as determined appropriate based on the historic use and condition of the Project Site. No survey was conducted on the Project Site. This Analysis finds that the Project will have no adverse impacts on archaeological, cultural, paleontological, and historic resources and that the Project conforms to Section 7-211 and 7-405C.2.d of the ULUR. General ULUR Standard of Review: Historic Preservation "Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance. The proposed land use change shall be designed to avoid or mitigate negative impacts upon previously identified archeological, paleontological and historical resources that exist in areas to be affected by the proposed development." "Section 7-405.C.2 Park Dedication. The following considerations shall be applied in determining which land areas are appropriate for dedication as parks… d. Protection of natural and historical features, scenic vistas, watersheds, air quality, timber and wildlife." a) Existing and Proposed Conditions Maps and records on file at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) were checked for any recorded historic and/or prehistoric sites in or immediately around the Project Site. There are no recorded sites inside the Project Site, or in the immediate vicinity. A majority of the Project Site was used for agricultural purposes for nearly 80 years and was regraded in 2005. As such, any resources that may have been present are likely to have been removed or significantly damaged beyond repair as part of these activities. The barn associated with the old ranch was removed from the Project Site in 2005. The barn may have had important historic attributes and many have been viewed as historically significant. No remnants exist today. At present, the only clearly identifiable resource located near the Project Site is a trestle carrying the Rio Grande Trail over Cattle Creek within the RFTA ROW. Although the trestle is not listed as an historic resource by the SHPO in their list of rail and historic resources, the trestle has characteristics that are important and may meet the general standards for preservation. It would appear that upon review by the SHPO that preservation of this resource might be promoted. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 101 b) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures The only feature that appears to have potential historic or pre-historic significance is the rail trestle located within the RFTA ROW immediately adjacent to the Project Site. In accordance with Section 7-405.C.2.d of the ULUR, common or open space tracts will be located adjacent to the trestle thereby allowing the trestle to be viewed from the Project Site and limiting any adjacent uses which could detract from the features associated with the trestle. As described in the Project description and outlined in the PUD Guide, the Project is designed in a manner that attempts to embrace the agriculture heritage of the Project Site and valley by integrating architecture and gardens/orchards and open spaces that pay homage to that history. No adverse impacts to historic and/or prehistoric sites in or immediately around the Project Site are anticipated in association with the Project. The Project conforms to the requirements of Section 7-211 and 7-402.C.2 of the ULUR. 3. CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITAT This section assesses the potential impacts of the proposed Project on critical wildlife habitat. Critical wildlife habitat is an area designated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or the Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source as a landscape that provides food, cover and water critical to meet the needs of a given species to survive and reproduce. In Garfield County that generally means (a) migration patterns and corridors, winter concentration areas, severe winter ranges, and production areas of elk, (b) migration corridors, staging areas, winter concentration areas, severe winter ranges and winter ranges of mule deer, (c) migration patterns, winter concentration areas and production areas of bighorn sheep, (d) roost sites of bald eagles, (e) nest sites of golden eagles, (f) nest sites of peregrine falcons, (g) production areas of sage grouse, (h) occupied habitat of lynx, and (i) sites or habitats regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This assessment of existing conditions and potential impacts is based on the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report included in Appendix K. General biological assessments are provided under Section III.G.1 of this Analysis. Section 7-202 of ULUR addresses the protection of wildlife habitat in association with land development activities. This assessment of existing conditions and potential impacts, and proposed mitigation has been developed in consideration of the requirements of the applicable sections of the ULUR. The detailed criteria are provided in Section III.G.1 of this Analysis. This Analysis has determined that through the mitigation measures incorporated in the REC PUD, the Project is likely to have insignificant adverse Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 102 impacts on critical wildlife habitat and conforms to the requirements of Section 7-202 of the ULUR. a) Existing and Proposed Conditions No critical wildlife habitat areas have been identified within the Project Site by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. However, two species subject to the critical wildlife habitat definition are known to utilize the Project Site and have critical habitat sites immediately adjacent to the Project Site within the RFC Conservation Easement. These species include the American Bald Eagle and Great Blue Heron. Winter and Severe Winter Range for mule deer and elk are also near to or adjoin the Project Site. The Project Site is considered Winter Range for elk. Potential impacts to mule deer and elk are discussed under the Flora and Fauna section (Section III.G.1) of this Analysis. With respect to the bald eagle, the closest bald eagle nest site is located on the Aspen Glen subdivision. Nesting at the site has been successful for the past 5 years. The report finds that bald eagles primarily use the RFC Conservation area immediately adjacent to the Project Site for roosting on trees near the river and hunting for fish. The Aspen Glen bald eagles are believed to be the only bald eagles utilizing the Project Site (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 47). The Great Blue Heron has been identified historically as an important and sensitive species in association with the Project Site and protective measures were incorporated in the to the GCE (Appendix F) to ensure protection of a heronry near the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. This Heronry is no longer utilized, but heronries are present within the RFC Conservation Easement adjacent to the Project Site. At this time, two ponderosa pine trees comprise the heronry (one tree fell down in 2009 due to bank erosion on the Roaring Fork River), with the one tree on the east bank of the Roaring Fork River having approximately 10 nests, and the tree on the western side of the river having 15 nests (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 41). This heronry is fairly productive given the limited size of area it occupies, when compared to the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (9 nests in 2008) and Woody Creek (15 nests in 2008) (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 41). The Heron Rookery is located immediately adjacent to the Project Site and meets the definition of critical habitat. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services notes that the cottonwoods being utilized are very decadent, in decline, with dead tops. When the trees die and begin to fall apart, the heron will move their heronry to other suitable live trees. Ponderosa pine and cottonwood trees of a large size and suitable structure to serve as rookeries are very limited in the area (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 42). Golden eagles have also found the heronry and are pursuing the chicks (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 103 Report, pg. 41). Similar occurrences at the Rock Bottom Ranch lead to abandonment of the heronry there (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 42). b) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses the potential impacts of the Project on critical bald eagle and heron habitat areas. Based upon this Analysis and the mitigation measures to be implemented at the Project Site, insignificant adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project is found to conform to the requirements of Section 7-202 of ULUR. (1) American Bald Eagle In its assessment of potential impacts on the bald eagle, the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report concludes that "the greatest potential impact to bald eagle will be during the development phase. Loud machinery and construction activities may preclude bald eagle from fully utilizing perching sites on and near the property, when these activities are on more of the western side of the property nearer the Roaring Fork River. However the eagles from the Aspen Glen subdivision are well accustomed to human activities, vehicle traffic, loud noises, and even gravel mining operations from the nearby LaFarge Gravel Pit. Therefore, the level of activities may indeed preclude some use of trees on or near the River Edge property for short periods of time, bald eagles would still likely be able to find and utilize other perches in the area, and no significant changes in behavioral patterns would be expected" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 47). No mitigation is determined to be necessary. No adverse impacts to the bald eagle are anticipated. (2) Great Blue Heron As noted in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, human disturbance can be a major factor influencing nesting and foraging activities of heron. Human activities can cause herons to temporarily abandon their breeding attempts, allow predation of eggs, or permanently abandon a colony. Most heronries are located in areas away from human activity, or have significant vegetative screening from human activities. However, some herons do become habituated to human activities (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 40). The heronry has a lack of screening vegetation, which means that herons on nests would have unobstructed views of activities on the Project Site. While it is well documented in the loud noises and unanticipated activities may cause herons to flush, or even abandon a nest site, the herons at this heronry are relatively accustomed to these activities and have successfully reared chicks year after year Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 104 (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 43). However, the presence of golden eagles at the site will be a major factor affecting the continued use of the site as a rookery (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 43). The PUD Guide includes an outdoor construction restriction within a 200 meter buffer area until the herons leave the heronry seasonally (i.e., outside of the breeding season), or abandon the heronry. Activities proposed to occur within the 200 meter buffer would include immediate berming and planting of vegetative screening. The proposed screening is depicted on the Landscape Plan. It is important to note that this heronry has been exposed to similar activities and disturbances in the past, and currently is exposed to very proximal human activities. Eleven homes are planned within the current 200 meter buffer. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services concludes "that with screening vegetation and berming, there is a relatively low likelihood that herons would abandon the heronry" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 44). Further, they State that "this heronry is subject to almost daily disturbances by boaters, anglers and bird- watchers approaching their nest trees either on foot or from the river during the summer months. There is also human activity and loud noises from the LaFarge Gravel Pits nearby and the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District’s water treatment plant…was also subject to daily heavy equipment operation for months within distances less than 50 meters of the nest trees during Bair Chase’s topsoil salvaging operations" (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 44) The proposed construction buffer delays heavy construction within the 200 meter buffer until after July 15th, with the understanding that by this time the herons would be very far along in their rearing of chicks and herons would not likely abandon chicks so late in their development. With the proposed landscape and construction buffers, the potential impacts of the Project on the heron rookery are unlikely to be significant enough to cause abandonment. As a result, the Project appears to have insignificant adverse impacts on the heron. 4. POTENTIAL RADIATION HAZARD This section assesses the radiation hazard associated with the Project Site and potential impacts of radiation on the Project. Section 7-109 of the ULUR provides that all land subject to natural hazards including radiation shall not be platted unless mitigated. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 105 General ULUR Standard of Review: Hazard Provisions "Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards. The use is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards and will not exacerbate existing natural hazards. A. Platting of Land Subject to Natural Hazards Prohibited or Restricted. Land subject to identified natural hazards such as falling rock, landslides, snow slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables, shall not be platted unless mitigation is proposed by a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Colorado, and approved by the County." The Project Site is generally been determined to be unaffected by high incidences of radiation. As a result, no adverse impacts from radiation are anticipated and the Project conforms to Section 7-109. a) Existing and Proposed Conditions The Project Site lies in Region 8 part of the Colorado Plateau Province and determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to have moderate radon potential (Map of Radon Zones: Colorado, EPA, September 1993, pg. iii-6). In accordance with this report, the Colorado Plateau Province in Region 8 has a band of high radon potential and a core of moderate radon potential. The band of high radon potential consists largely of: (1) the Uravan Mineral Belt, a uranium mining district, on the east; (2) the Uinta Basin, which contains uranium-bearing Tertiary rocks, on the north; and (3) Tertiary volcanic rocks, which have a high aeroradiometric signature, on the west. The moderate radon potential zone located in the interior part of the province, within which the Project Site is located, is underlain primarily by sedimentary rocks, including sandstone, limestone, and shale, which have a low aeroradiometric signature. County average screening indoor radon levels in the Colorado Plateau are mostly greater than 2 pCi/L but are often at or below this level within the area surrounding the Project Site. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J) addresses the potential radiation hazard. The study concludes "the project site is not located on geologic deposits that would be expected to have high concentration of radioactive minerals" (Geotechnical Engineering Study, pg. 18). b) Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures No substantial risk of radiation has been identified in association with the Project Site. As such, traditional building technologies should adequately deal with the potential for excessive radon concentrations accumulating in Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 106 buildings. As noted by HP Geotech, "new buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas concentration" (Geotechnical Engineering Study, pg. 18). No mitigation is proposed or determined to be necessary based on the findings. No adverse impacts associated with radiation are anticipated. The Project is found to conform to Section 7-109 of the ULUR. 5. SPILL PREVENTION No uses are proposed that require specific assessment and spill response measures with the REC PUD pursuant to the ULUR. Section 7-204 of the ULUR outlines the standards for spill prevention and water quality protection. Traditional and commonly accepted practices included as part of the construction standards applied by the contractor during site development to reasonably respond to any fuel or chemical spill that could occur in association with construction activities. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan adequately addresses spill prevention. No adverse impacts are anticipated in association with this Project provided the construction is completed in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. No specific additional mitigation is required. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan complies with the provisions of Section 7-204 of the ULUR. No storage areas subject to potential fuel spills or facilities which would house hazardous materials are located within 100 feet of any waterbody General ULUR Standard of Review: Spill Provisions "Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants. The following regulations shall apply to all land use changes, except agricultural activities allowed by right. A. Compliance with State and Federal Regulations. At a minimum, all hazardous materials shall be stored and used in compliance with applicable State and Federal hazardous materials regulations. B. Storage Near Waterbodies Restricted. 1. The storage of hazardous materials within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of any waterbody is restricted. When no practical alternative exists, site specific best management practices shall be employed to minimize potential adverse water quality impacts. 2. Sand and salt for road traction shall not be stored within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of any waterbody unless there is no practicable alternative, in which case suitable site-specific best management practices shall be utilized. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 107 C. Spill Prevention. Measures shall be implemented to prevent spilled fuels, lubricants or other hazardous materials from entering a waterbody during construction or operation of equipment and/or facility. If a spill occurs it should be cleaned up immediately and disposed of properly. D. Machine Maintenance. Maintenance of vehicles or mobile machinery is prohibited within 100 feet of any waterbody. Emergency maintenance may be conducted until the vehicle or machinery can be moved. E. Fuel Storage Areas. Containment measures shall be provided for all fuel storage areas to prevent release into any waterbody. Inventory management or leak detection systems may be required. F. Waste Storage. Areas used for the collection and temporary storage of solid or liquid waste shall be designed to prevent discharge of these materials in runoff from the site. Collection sites shall be located away from the storm drainage system. Other best management practices such as covering the waste storage area, fencing the site, and constructing a perimeter dike to exclude runoff may also be required." H. TRAFFIC This section assesses the traffic associated with the Project and potential impacts to roads and highways in accordance with Section 4-502.J of the ULUR. Section 7-108 and Section 7-301.B.4 of the ULUR identify the criteria associated with site access and traffic. In addition, Section 6-202.D. of the ULUR provides for internal street circulation in association with a PUD. A Traffic Assessment associated with access to SH-82, meeting the general criteria in Section 4-502.J of the ULUR, was prepared by Fehr and Peers and is included in Appendix M. Internal traffic assessments complete by 8140 Partners, LLC are presented and discussed herein. This Analysis finds that the potential traffic effects associated with the Project are insignificant, that there are nominal impacts to County Roads, and roads serving the Project including the internal road networks have adequate capacity and provide reasonable and safe access to and through the Project Site. The Project conforms to Sections 6-202.D., 7-108 and 7-301.B.4 of the ULUR. Lots and parcels have legal access to public roads along private internal development roadways and right-of-way tracts and internal circulation is provided. General ULUR Standard of Review: Access and Roadway Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 108 "Section 6-202.D Street Circulation System. The PUD shall provide an adequate internal street circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, safety, separation from living areas, convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Bicycle traffic shall be provided for when the site is used for residential purposes." "Section 7-108 Access and Roadways. All roads shall be designed to road design standards set forth in Section 7-307 and all roads shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. (2009-53) B. Access to Public Right-of-Way. All lots and parcels shall have access to a public right-of-way. C. Safe Access. Access to and from the use shall be safe and in conformance with access standards set forth in the [title of new road/bridge standards]. Where the land use change causes warrant(s) for improvements to State or Federal highways, the developer shall be responsible for paying for those improvements. D. Adequate Capacity. Access serving the proposed use shall have the capacity to accept the additional traffic generated by the use safely and efficiently. The use shall not cause traffic congestion or unsafe traffic conditions, and all impacts to the County and State roadway system shall be mitigated through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both." "Section 7-301.B.4. Roadway System Impacts. Impacts to the County roadway system associated with hauling, truck traffic and equipment use shall be mitigated through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both." 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The following describes the existing road network and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Project along with the road network and traffic conditions which would result in association with the Project. a) Road System Exhibit 1 in Appendix R shows the existing road network in the vicinity of the Project, the proposed internal road network, proposed access point, proposed EVAs, existing access easements, and potential future road connections. The Project will take access from SH-82, a State Highway, at CR 113. The current access to the site exists at this point. SH-82 is a median divided rural highway with two lanes in each direction. Auxiliary turn lanes exist at full movement intersections as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes. The speed limit along SH-82 in the vicinity of the Project varies from 55 to 65 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 109 miles per hour. SH-82 is classified as an Expressway, Category E‐X by CDOT. According to the State of Colorado Access Code, direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. CR 113 intersects CR 110 and Frontage Road prior to intersecting SH-82 on the east side of SH-82. Commercial uses exist along CR 110 and Frontage Road. The intersection of SH-82 and CR 113 is an unsignalized full movement access. Two additional accesses to SH-82 of importance to the Project are located at Mirand Road and Spring Valley Road (CR 114/154), both located north of the Project Site. The closet major access to SH-82 south of the Project Site occurs at Diamond A Ranch Road at Aspen Glen, nearly two miles south of the Project Site. The intersection of CR 114/154 and SH-82 is a full movement signalized intersection with designated left turn lanes. On the west side of the intersection is a small park–n‐ride lot for the transit stop that is located at the intersection. East of the intersection are industrial and commercial uses. Marand Road is located near the northern tip of the Project Site and is a local 2 lane access roadway on the east side of SH-82, providing access to industrial and commercial uses. Across SH-82 from Marand Road access exists to a former restaurant site which is currently vacant. The access is unsignalized and full movement. SH-82 is one of two north-south connections between CR 114/154 and Carbondale. The other is north-south connection is CR-109. Only one east- west connection across the Roaring Fork River is provided between CR 154 and Carbondale (SH 133). This connection occurs on private roads through Aspen Glen along Golden Bear Drive, Midland Loop, Bald Eagle Way, and Diamond A Ranch Road. CR-109 serves the areas west of the Roaring Fork River between these points and SH-82 serves properties east of the Roaring Fork River. The RFC Conservation Easement (Appendix F) located immediately west of the Project Site does allow for a bridge connection across the Roaring Fork River to the northern most end of the easement. The PUD Guide also provides for this future condition. b) Description of Existing Land Uses and Access Conditions The Project Site is generally undeveloped and produces almost no trips currently. Adjacent or nearby commercial, industrial and residential uses access the SH-82 via the intersection at CR 113, Mirand Road and CR 114/154 along with a few private accesses north of the vacant restaurant site ("Sopris") near the north end of the Project Site between the Sopris and CR 114/154. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 110 (1) Current Trip Generation Existing traffic counts were conducted in May 2010 by All Traffic Data for AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. These counts were adjusted to reflect summer peak traffic. According to CDOT records, May traffic is 0.8 times the average annual traffic. Summer peaks are noticed in July along SH‐82 and are 1.25 of the average annual traffic. The counts were factored up by 1.56 to reflect the summer peak. The Project Site currently produces only very limited trips. While peak through trips on SH‐82 at the proposed access point are 721/1905/1087 (AM/PM/SAT‐Northbound) and 1551/998/860 (AM/PM/SAT‐Southbound). Left turn movements onto CR 113 are 59/33/31 (AM/PM/SAT) and right turns onto CR 113 are 45/75/48 (AM/PM/SAT). Movements from CR 113 on to SH‐82 are 67/100/58 (AM/PM/SAT‐Right/Northbound) and 109/66/41 (AM/PM/SAT‐ Left/Southbound). Other existing intersection counts are provided in Figure 5 of the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M). (2) Permit Requirements for Access to a State Highway, Railroad Crossings, and Status A State Highway Access Permit will be required to take access to SH‐ 82 at CR 113. The access will also require a crossing of the RFTA ROW immediately west of SH‐82. All permitting will be done via the State and RFTA process at time of final plat. All indications from CDOT are that a permit to access at the proposed location is likely to be approved, as it was previously, with design specifics being the primary focus of future discussions and permitting. CI has held discussions and presented the results of the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M) to Region 3 CDOT Traffic representatives Alica Babler and Daniel Roussin, on July 21, 2010 and a revised analysis on November 4, 2010 (See Coordination Documentation Appendix V). They noted that a Level III Traffic Study will be needed to secure the access permit. The Traffic Assessment (Appendix M) provided is an initial feasibility study and provides a reasonable approach for understanding the conditions associated with the Project. The Level III Traffic Study will be prepared prior to final plat and needs to include the standard Level 3 Traffic Study documentation and recommendations for the entire intersection, including the east half of the intersection. The intersection design may include short term recommendations if the final intersection layout is not appropriate to constructed at this time or if some improvements are not the responsibility of CI. Addressing CR 113 will require additional coordination between CI, the County, and CDOT as the design progresses. Due to the timeframes and cost involved, an access permit should not be obtained prior to PUD approval, but in advance of final plat. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 111 The RFTA ROW crossing is covered by a license agreement. As previously stated, the Project proposes an entry road be constructed across the RFTA ROW near CR 113 and SH-82. A license agreement for access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFTA and is included in Appendix H. The access is proposed as a private access. No through traffic is currently provided for by the REC PUD and no public uses are proposed within the REC PUD. As such, no public need exists for access to or through the development and public ownership and maintenance of the roads with in the development are not warranted. Although through access can be achieved in the future if desired as provided for by Tract RD at the northern end of the Project, conversion of the road to a public road and administration of the road by a public entity meeting the requirements of Part 7 Rules Regulating Railroads, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and Rail Crossings of 4 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 723-7 ("PUC Rules") administered by the PUC would be required. The private access is required to be designed and constructed to RFTA standards as a future at-grade rail crossing. The preliminary design meeting RFTA standards is shown on the Site Access Plans, Series C06 of the Drawing Package. Based on the number of trips generated from the development and assumptions concerning future rail service, the exposure factor, as defined by the PUC Rules, would generally place this crossing within the thresholds associated with grade-separation requirements. The plans presented conform to the RFTA and associated PUC standards for design of an at-grade crossing for passenger rail service. The issues associated with a grade-separated crossing design have been discussed at length with RFTA and resulted in the license agreement for an at-grade crossing. Per the license agreement, CI is bound to future rail enhancements at the crossing if rail is initiated by RFTA. (3) Legal Status of Access Easements The RFTA ROW crossing required by the entry road at CR 113 and SH-82 is covered by an easement providing at-grade access to the Project Site. The easement for access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFRHA (now RFTA) and is included in Appendix H. Several other access and utility agreements and licenses are also noted on the ALTA, Series V01 of the Drawing Package. These licenses are not proposed for use at this time, but are also granted to adjacent properties and may support future development adjacent to the Project Site. EVA access agreements will be included as exclusions from the deeds filed with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder upon transfer of these properties from CI to the new owner. This exception provides for construction of a 20 foot EVA across the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 112 property to a point along SH-82 as is convenient for the development of the property and as necessary to meet EVA standards. An access easement (Book 1217, Page 610) exists for access through the Project Site across all roads to a property located west of the western most edge of the Project Site. This access agreement is provided for on the PUD Plan, PUD02 Series of the Drawing Package and must be placed on any final plat. c) Description of Proposed Land Uses and Trip Generation Projections The project is described in detail under Section II.B of this Analysis. The development is planned as a residential development with 366 residential units comprised of single family homes plus a neighborhood center and a water treatment and maintenance facility. The vehicle trips associated with the Project were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition. Trip generation forecasts were developed for full buildout of the property. The ITE method consists of choosing an appropriate independent variable for each land use for a particular time of day. The value of the independent variable is multiplied by a weighted average rate or inserted into a regression equation to calculate the trips generated by each land use. The ITE land uses planned for development are Single Family Housing and Recreation Center. Water and wastewater facilities were included within the recreation center as such facilities are primarily scoped to serve the Project and require limited access. (1) AM and PM Peak Hour Use Table 3 of the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M) provides the estimated trip generation for the Project. AM and PM peak hour trips are estimated at 276 and 347, respectively. Saturday peak hour trips are estimated at 341. (2) Access Geometrics A preliminary assessment of access geometrics is provided on the Site Access Plans, Series C06 of the Drawing Package. Based on the Traffic Assessment, this would represent the maximum likely configuration of the intersection at SH-82. A Level III Traffic Study, as defined by CDOT, will be prepared by CI prior to final plat. Detailed recommendations for the intersection, including the east half of the intersection, will be prepared for CDOT and evaluated at that time. The plan presented on the Site Access Plans represents a worse case configuration. Intersection geometry will meet CDOT standards and requirements. CDOT has recommended a comprehensive examination for the intersection at CR 113 and coordination with the County to help develop a long range plan for Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 113 enhancing the configuration and safety of the eastern portion of the intersection. It is anticipated by the Traffic Assessment that right and left turn lanes will be required as part of the design and that a signal will be required at buildout (2018). (3) Impacts to County Roads CR 110 and 113 access SH-82 at the same location as the Project. At the request of CDOT, the design of the SH-82 access must consider the future needs and configuration of CR 110 and 113 to determine if improvements to their layouts, both in an interim and final condition, could improve safety and performance of the SH-82/CR 113 intersection. Based on the Traffic Assessment, there is minimal degradation to performance of the County roads as a result of the Project. At Project buildout (2018), conditions worsen at the intersection performance such that signalization is required. Without the Project, signalization is not required until (2030) but PM side street delays at CR 113 and SH-82 will exceed 100 seconds and AM will exceed 71 seconds without the project and continue to worsen through 2030. Signalization of the CR 113 and SH-82 intersection in 2018 in association with the Project enhances safety at CR 113 and reduces side street delays to 13 seconds instead of the 100 second delays that would exist without the Project. As a result the Project has beneficial effects on CR 113. Mirand Road and CR 114 are insignificantly or unaffected by the Project. (4) Impacts to State Highways Traffic from the Project is contained within the background trips associated with SH-82 growth projections. If development doesn't happen at this site, it will happen elsewhere. As a result, the Project whether located at this location or elsewhere has similar effects on SH-82 traffic and represents less than 1%-2% of the total traffic at buildout. SH-82 will be minimally impacted by the proposed access point to the Project Site. The progression analysis in the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M) indicates that reasonable and acceptable progressions can be achieved by signalization of the CR 113 and SH-82 intersection at buildout (2018). The signalization will enhance safety and side street performance. In the interim condition, side street performance worsens through buildout and safety is minimally Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 114 compromised over existing conditions as a result of entries onto a high speed facilities. d) Description of the Construction Phase(s) (1) Staging and Storage Areas All staging and storage areas are currently proposed to be located on the Project Site as provided in the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. Access to these areas is provided via temporary onsite roads and access to the sites is provided by SH-82 at the main intersection located at CR 113. (2) Temporary Access Points Temporary access is currently proposed at the main access point to SH-82 at CR 113. A construction access permit will be required to be obtained from CDOT. (3) Duration, Types and Frequency of Heavy Truck Traffic Generally, heavy truck traffic will only access the Project Site for purposes of construction. No heavy truck trips other than those typically associated with residential uses are anticipated at buildout. It is anticipated that at peak construction, vehicle trips are not expected to exceed 750 vehicle trips per day. This represents less than a third of the vehicle trips anticipated at buildout and far below the threshold under which signalization of the CR 113 and SH-82 intersection would be required in accordance with the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M). Heavy trucks trips will include heavy equipment and materials delivery trucks. Heavy truck trips are anticipated to represent a small portion of the overall trips to the property during construction. Workers and small contractor vehicles are expected to make up a majority of the trips to and from the Project Site. The Project plans include reuse of a majority of the onsite materials in an effort to utilize sand and gravel resources onsite and reduce trips associated with such raw materials. (4) Access Road Segments to be Impacted No County roads are anticipated to be impacted by construction activities. SH-82 will provide access to the site for purposes of construction. (5) Projected Lane Closures or Traffic Interruption Temporary lane closures are only anticipated during construction of SH-82 intersection improvements as well as EVA access improvements. Traffic interruption should be limited to those periods of construction. No County roads except CR 110 and 113 are anticipated to see disruption in association with construction. CR 110 and 113 are anticipated to see similar work zone closures and interruptions as might be experienced on SH-82 during construction Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 115 of SH-82 access improvements. Access to SH-82 from CR 110/113 will likely be able to be maintained during construction of intersection improvements. (6) County or State Permits As previously discussed, an access permit for construction and permanent access to the Project Site must be obtained from CDOT. If access improvements extend beyond CDOT ROW onto the adjacent CR 110 and 113 rights-of-way, permits will be required from Garfield County. At this time, no improvements to CR 110 or 113 are anticipated and any such improvements would only be done in coordination with Garfield County and CDOT. It is unlikely that any intersections improvements required by this Project will extend outside of CDOT ROW. e) Description of the Internal Road Network and Circulation The Project road network is proposed as a private road network. The road alley sections are discussed in the Project Engineering Design Report. Both The road sections proposed as part of the Project follow typical modern design standards for urban and suburban roads. The justification for the road designs and proposed maintenance is provided in the Justification Report and documented in the Project Engineering Design Report. (1) Roundabouts A roundabout is proposed at the main entry point to the development to accommodate traffic generated to the north and south of Cattle Creek. Daily trips passing through this intersection are anticipated to be approximately equal to the total Project trips estimated by the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M). At fewer than 4000 vehicle trips per day (vpd) and preliminary estimated capacity of between 18,000 and 22,000, in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (“FWHA”) roundabout guidelines and estimates, roundabout performance should exceed LOS B at all times. Mini-roundabouts are proposed in two locations at both the north end and south end of the Project. These mini roundabouts are features designed to slow traffic and allow vehicles to turnaround. The mini roundabout at the north end is designed to allow for expansion to a full roundabout if a connection is provided to the north and east in the future. (2) Local Roads Local roads are generally design to meet County standards in most respects except that the road sections allow for on-street parking. Generally, intersection designs, curve radii, and lane width meet the requirements of Section 7-307 of the ULUR. Again, variances from these design requirements are specifically supported by the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 116 Justification Report and documented in the Project Engineering Design Report. The road designs support capacities of between 6,000 and 10,000 vpd based on FHWA standards. However, most roads will carry fewer than 2000 vpd. As a result, the roads will perform at an LOS A. At this level of service, stop-controlled local road intersections are unlikely to experience any delay. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the Traffic Assessment and likely mitigation, no adverse impacts from traffic are expected. In addition, potential impacts to County roads are insignificant as no County roads provide access to the Project Site. It should be noted that AM/PM delays at CR 113 increase at a slightly faster rate between 2012 and 2018 with the Project, but relief of currently poor conditions is provided twelve years earlier than without the Project through signalization. With a signal at CR 113, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS B or better verses LOS E/F without the Project. Mitigation efforts are anticipated to be needed in order to maintain efficient operations along the SH-82 corridor. It must be noted that these are preliminary mitigation recommendations. A Level III Traffic Study, as defined by CDOT, will be prepared by CI prior to final plat to define the specific access improvements and timing of the improvements and obtain an access permit. CI is responsible for meet the State Access Code with the proposed access throughout the Project's development. Each final plat may require specific measures as part of the CDOT access permit. The following mitigation measures are anticipated to be required to meet the State Access Code requirements: CR 113 at SH-82 - A signal will be needed at CR 113 and SH-82 upon buildout. With a signal at CR 113, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS B or better during all peak hours. The westbound right turn will not need to be separated if a signal is present. Auxiliary left turn lanes are required at CR 113. The transition taper length will be included with the required storage and deceleration length. A right turn deceleration lane with taper is required for southbound traffic turning onto CR 113. No additional mitigation efforts are recommended by the Traffic Assessment (Appendix M). Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 117 I. NUISANCE CONDITIONS This section discusses potential nuisance conditions associated with the Project and the potential impacts on adjacent or nearby properties, trail users and future residential property owners within the Project. Section 7-301.B of the ULUR addresses nuisance standards for land use changes which require that dust and fumes, noise, hours of operation, and traffic is managed to a level that results in minimizing nuisance conditions on adjacent properties. General ULUR Standard of Review: Compatible Design and Nuisances "Section 7-301 Compatible Design. The design of development associated with the land use change shall be compatible with and enhance the existing character of adjacent uses. …B. Operational Characteristics. The operations of activities on the site shall be managed to avoid nuisances to adjacent uses relating to hours of operations, parking, service delivery, and location of service areas and docks. 1. Objectionable Emissions. Dust, odors, gas, fumes, and glare shall not be emitted at levels that are objectionable to adjacent property. 2. Noise. Noise as measured at the property boundary shall not exceed State noise standards and shall be buffered by landscaping or other screening devices. 3. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation shall be established to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. 4. Roadway System Impacts. Impacts to the County roadway system associated with hauling, truck traffic and equipment use shall be mitigated through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both." The Project is anticipated to result in temporary construction-related nuisances such as noise and dust. Although the Project will fully comply with C.R.S. 25-12-103 and applicable State and Federal air quality standards for dust control, Rio Grande Trail users are likely to notice noise and dust particularly when construction activates are being conducted immediately adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail. Neighboring residential and commercial properties are located at some distance from the Project Site, and while they may experience minimal additional ambient noise and dust during construction, the level experienced will be far below the standards prescribed by C.R.S. 25-12-103 and applicable State and Federal air quality standards for dust control. The installation of the mitigation landscape areas and berms along the Rio Grande Trail in accordance with the RFTA Open Space Easement (Appendix E) are proposed as part of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and will be installed during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) of the Project. These mitigation features should minimize the potential impacts of noise and dust on trail users to the maximum extent practicable. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 118 The potential nuisance effects associated with the Project are considered insignificant during construction and at buildout to surrounding properties and trail users. At early stages of construction, including the pre-development reclamation (Phase 0), when construction activities must be conducted immediately adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail, potential nuisance effects are likely to be noticed by trail users. Regardless, the activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable standards. The potential impacts to trail users are temporary and unavoidable, and are considered insignificant. 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The Project is described in detail under Section II.B of this Analysis. The Project Site is located adjacent to SH-82 and near the RFWSD WWTP and Lafarge Gravel Pit. As such, the immediate area is impacted to a certain degree by highway and industrial noise, fumes and dust. The level of impact to the Project Site and nearby properties is very limited but noticeable. Ambient noise levels are generally higher than places further removed from SH-82, a high speed highway. The Project Site will include roads, residential, recreational uses, and certain water and sewer treatment facilities. Access to the Project is taken from SH-82. The Rio Grande Trail will be grade-separated at the entry point and landscaping and berms will be located within the RFTA Open Space Easement (Appendix E). Traffic levels associated with the Project are discussed in Traffic section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. Approximately, 3500 daily trips are generated at buildout. The construction of the Project is anticipated to last about 7 years. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section details the potential nuisance effects associated with the Project during construction and at buildout in accordance with Section 7-301 of the ULUR. Based on this Analysis, the potential impacts associated with nuisance conditions created by the Project on adjacent properties at buildout are non- adverse. Nuisance conditions during construction may be noticeable at the Project boundaries or to trail users. While the potential impacts of noise, dust and construction traffic may be noticeable to individuals at certain times during short intensive periods of construction near the Project boundaries, the effects are unavoidable even with the implementation of reasonable construction mitigation practices for dust, noise and traffic, and conformance of the Project with applicable noise and air quality standards. The impacts of nuisance conditions associated with the adjoining highway, RFWSD WWTP, and Lafarge aggregate operations on the Project are non-adverse and are reasonably mitigated by distance and proposed landscape berms and buffers. a) Potential impacts on Adjacent Uses and Properties This section discusses the potential nuisance effects by the Project on important adjacent uses. Traffic related potential impacts are discussed in the Traffic section (Section III.H) of this analysis, but are also briefly discussed below in relationship to potential impacts of traffic on neighboring properties and trail users. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 119 (1) Rio Grande Trail Uses Construction activities associated with the Project's development could impose some undesirable effects on Rio Grande trail users during the construction period. Noise and dust could make use of the trail less attractive during certain construction periods. Dust controls meeting State and Federal air quality control standards as incorporated in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and required Air Quality Control Permits should ensure the potential impacts remain insignificant. Potential impacts are likely to be greatest during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) since major site grading and soil work is planned and landscaping and berms will be located within the RFTA Open Space Easement (Appendix E) as required by RFTA during this period. Some of these features were preliminarily located adjacent to the trail when this segment was paved in 2007/2008. Subsequent construction activities are more localized and smaller in overall scale. In addition, plantings proposed as part of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) will be completed along the trail and provide a buffer before Project-related construction activities begin. The potential impacts associated with noise from construction are anticipated to be consistent with existing SH-82 noise impacts to trail users. Again, during the pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) of the Project Site potential impacts from noise on trail users are likely to be greatest since major site grading and soil work is planned. Subsequent construction activities are much more limited and are likely to have only limited potential impacts from noise. At no time are noise levels expected to exceed the standards specified in Section 7-301.B.2 of the ULUR or C.R.S. 25-12-103 beyond the Project boundaries. Finally, construction and development traffic will cross the trail at the entry point. The trail is proposed to be grade-separated at the initialization of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) to eliminate potential traffic conflicts as early as possible in the development sequence. As a result, the potential impacts of traffic on trail users will be eliminated. Overall, the anticipated potential impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing the Rio Grande Trail are insignificant during the construction period and consistent with existing noise and fume impacts from SH-82, although during certain periods of construction particularly during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) and when construction is occurring immediately adjacent to the trail, potential impacts could be noticeable. These potential impacts are unavoidable. Measures taken to limit noise and dust propagation Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 120 typically required at construction sites adjacent to sensitive uses will be implemented as part of construction. With the measures proposed as part of the REC PUD, the potential nuisance effects on the Rio Grande Trail associated with the Project are considered insignificant, although potential impacts could be noticeable to trail users during temporary intense construction periods. Potential impacts on trail users are in keeping with all RFTA licenses, policies and standards. (2) Residential and Commercial Uses Construction activities associated with the Project Site's development could potentially impose some undesirable effects on nearby residential uses. Ambient noise and dust, although below levels specified C.R.S. 25-12-103 and State and Federal air quality regulations, could make outdoor activities less attractive to some individuals during certain construction periods. The distance to these properties is greater than 500 feet and so actual dust and noise levels will be insignificant. Dust controls meeting State and Federal air quality control standards as incorporated in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and required Air Quality Control Permits should limit the potential impact of dust to insignificant levels at least consistent with or better than existing aggregate operation impacts to nearby residential uses. Potential impacts are likely greatest during the pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) of the Project Site since major site grading and soil work is planned. Subsequent construction activities are more localized and smaller in overall scale. The potential impacts associated with noise from construction are anticipated to be consistent with existing SH-82 and aggregate operation noise impacts to residential uses. Again, during the pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) of the Project Site potential impacts from noise are likely to be the greatest since major site grading and soil work is planned during this pre-development phase of the Project. Subsequent construction activities are much more limited and are likely to have only limited potential impacts from noise. Overall, the anticipated potential impacts to nearby residential uses are insignificant during the construction period. Traffic, associate with construction and development, generated by the Project does not cross any local roads of streets in the vicinity of the Project. All traffic from the Project is accommodated by SH-82 and represents a small percent of the total traffic on SH-82. As a result, the potential impacts of traffic as a nuisance condition are insignificant. Traffic effects and mitigation is further discussed in the Traffic section (Section III.H) of this Analysis. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 121 Overall, impacts to adjacent and nearby residential uses are considered insignificant. Potential nuisance effects on adjacent commercial uses are considered non-adverse and consistent with residential effects. b) Potential impacts from Adjacent Uses and Properties (1) SH-82 Noise associated with SH-82 could impact the proposed outdoor and residential uses at the Project Site. Generally, SH-82 is more than 200 feet from any residential uses and more than 500 feet from any significant proposed outdoor uses. The Project Site also sits below SH-82. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends a three part noise abatement strategy that starts with land use planning and control, source control, and noise mitigation (Highway Traffic and Construction Noise - Problem and Response, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, April 2006). Avoiding the placement of noise sensitive uses adjacent to a highway is the first and most effective part of noise abatement. FHWA encourages the placement of non-sensitive commercial and industrial uses along highways. Large buffers, berms, vegetative screening, noise walls, and other measures are some of the treatments that can help to mitigate the effects as part three of the FHWA's noise abatement strategies. FHWA noise references commonly identify a 200 foot buffer as being adequate to reduce noise by as much as 10 dBA [The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use, Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., under the direction FHWA, 1976 ("Noise Manual")]. The Noise Manual further provides that topography can play the most significant role in mitigating noise. A highway sitting above a site, as it does in the case of REC, limits or diminishes the effects significantly. Ten to fifteen foot landscaped berms were also placed along the Rio Grande Trail in the fifty foot RFTA Open Space Easement south of Cattle Creek by Related Westpac at the request RFTA in 2007/2008 to help buffer the trail. These berms are retained and expanded in the REC and serve to help buffer the first tier of homes from noise. In 8140 Partners, LLC's experience in conducting noise modeling and preparing noise mitigation measures and standards, while highway noise may be apparent to residents of the REC, based on projected highway traffic conditions (Appendix M Traffic Assessment) noise level are unlikely to exceed levels considered significant by FHWA standards. The proposed buffers between the edge of highway and residential uses, separation distance, and topography all benefit the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 122 Project by reducing the potential noise reaching the Project Site. As a result, based on our experience, potential impact of noise levels are anticipated to be insignificant. (2) RFTA Noise and vibration could be potential impacts associated with any future rail service along the RFTA ROW. The degree of impact would depend on the nature of the technology employed by the rail operations. As a result, no vibration or noise mitigation is proposed at present. However, the open space buffer (RFTA Open Space Easement, Appendix E) and the RFTA ROW, itself, provide adequate space to provide some visual and noise mitigation in the future if rail service is implemented and noise mitigation is determined necessary. By such time, plantings within the adjacent open space corridor should be adequate to provide immediate buffering from the rail service within the corridor. Depending upon the technology selected to provide rail service, the potential future vibration and noise impacts could be potentially significant based on the Federal Transit Authority's (“FTA”) guidance concerning noise and vibration impacts from rail as documented in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration May 2006. However, current easement standards were agreed to with RFTA and are designed to mitigate these issues to some extent as previously discussed. Due to the nature of the corridor as a whole and the adjacent and nearby sensitive corridor uses, Train technologies if implemented will have to address these issues. The proposed development does not pose any unusual constraints that do not already exist. Impacts are likely to be minimally adverse. (3) Industrial Uses (RFWSD WWTP and Lafarge Aggregate Operations) The Project Site is located across the Roaring Fork River from the RFWSD WWTP and Lafarge aggregate operation. The separation from both facilities is significant over 500-1000 feet to the nearest home. However, odors and some noise impacts may occur in association with the RFWSD WWTP from time to time, although most of the operations are currently housed indoors so odor and noise impacts are substantially minimized. In addition, noise and dust associated with the existing aggregate operations may be experienced on the Project Site and could impact outdoor activities. However, at the separation distances involved noise and dust should only minimally impact any residential uses proposed on the Project Site. The RFWSD WWTP is visible from the Project Site and could be considered visually intrusive by some residents, however the visual impacts of the plant on the Project are anticipated to be reasonably mitigated by vegetative buffers proposed to mitigate potential Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 123 heron rookery impacts associated with the Project (See proposed Flora and Fauna mitigation in Section III.G.1 of this Analysis). All potential impacts associated with the subject industrial uses are anticipated to be insignificant due to the separation distances and buffers that exist between the uses proposed at the Project Site and the existing industrial uses. No additional mitigation is proposed or necessary. (4) Internal Industrial Uses (WTP/WWTP and Maintenance Facilities) The Project includes a potential WTP, WWTP and maintenance facilities. All of these facilities have the potential to create noise and flumes. The tracts on which these uses will be located (Tracts AG, AO and AR) are separated from proposed residential uses and specific mitigation measures and performance standards are proposed in the PUD Guide to minimize the potential impacts of these facilities to nearby residential and open space uses. At the separation distances involved, noise, dust, fumes, and odors should only minimally impact any residential uses proposed on the Project Site. Insignificant or no adverse impacts are anticipated based on the standards imposed. J. RECLAMATION The Project Site is highly damaged as described in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K) and the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J). The Project Site was regraded and stripped of top soil in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. As a result, two forms of reclamation are planned as part of the Project. Project reclamation will occur in association with the erosion and sediment control framework established by Erosion and Sediment Control Plan including seeding. Seeding efforts under the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be in coordinated through the Landscape Plan and landscaping standards and erosion control measures in the PUD Guide. In addition to the traditional reclamation efforts addressed by the ULUR in association with development, as a result of the damage to the Project Site caused by Blair Chase under the Sanders Ranch PUD and requirements of the RFC Conservation Easement (Appendix F) and RFTA Open Space Easement (Appendix E), the Project Site must be reclaimed in advance of development under a series of pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) actions including wildlife and trail mitigation measures. The pre- development reclamation (Phase 0) will be accomplished under the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. Section 7-212 of the ULUR provides the standard of review in association with reclamation (See Reclamation inset). The ULUR generally requires a series of actions to ensure that disturbed areas are restored with vegetation and erosion of soils in limited. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Landscape Plan and PUD Guide fully conform to Section 7-212 such that land disturbance in association with the Project will have no adverse impacts. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 124 ULUR Standard of Review: Reclamation Section 7-212 Reclamation B. Reclamation of Disturbed Areas. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural-appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography. (Reso 2009-53) 1. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be re-vegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non- native vegetation capable of supporting the post-disturbance land use. a. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of weed-free species and plant cover typical to that site. 2. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. 3. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. 4. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative residue, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot- clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval. 5. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site. 6. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County. 1. PROPOSED PLAN a) Pre-Development Reclamation (Phase 0) Pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) is addressed in detail by the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) outlines a series of Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 125 actions that will be undertaken to restore the degraded Project Site and prepare the development areas within the Project to receive development over the development period. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) includes the following efforts: (1) relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the entry point; (2) relocation of the Glenwood Ditch; (3) site grading and restoration including geotechnical mitigation; (4) drainage improvements; and (5) revegetation and wildlife and trail mitigation. These efforts will result in a Project Site that is fully restored including naturalized spaces and areas prepared to receive development or produce agricultural crops/nursery stock in the interim period. A reclamation agreement is proposed as part of the rezoning and preliminary plan approval to ensure that reclamation is completed in accordance with the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and that bonds are available to complete the actions to fully restore the Project Site if CI fails to complete the work. (1) Relocation of Rio Grande Trail Based on the requirements presented in the RFTA Open Space Easement (Appendix E), the Rio Grande Trail will be relocated to an adjacent grade-separated alignment beneath the main entrance for the Project. The relocated trail approach grades from the north and south are less than 6 percent and transitioned to allow continuous movement for trail users and allow users to enter and exit the trail to other connecting facilities in the vicinity of the proposed Neighborhood center. The structure will be 12 feet (w) by 50 feet (l) and 10 foot (h) and facilitate safe and secure passage of trail users across the Project access (See Rio Grande Trail Underpass Plan and Section, Series C05 in Drawing Package). This relocation activity will occur prior to initiating major reclamation efforts to facilitate safe separation of construction traffic and trail users. (2) Relocation of the Glenwood Ditch To maintain the required irrigation flows in the Glenwood Ditch and facilitate coordination with development activities, the Glenwood Ditch will be partially relocated from its current location to the new alignment presented in Glenwood Ditch Relocation Plan and Profiles, Series SW06 of the Drawings Package. The relocated section of pipe will match the existing size (48-inches in diameter), average grade (approximately 0.1 percent) and minimum cover (18 inches). New manholes will be placed to facilitate horizontal alignment changes (i.e. bends), maintenance, and usage for open space irrigation. Due to the constraints created by the relocation of the Glenwood Ditch on other planned utilities, coordination activities including the installation of utility sleeves will also be completed at this time to lessen future impacts on the Glenwood Ditch by the future placement of utilities in association with development. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 126 (3) Site Grading and Restoration including Geotechnical Mitigation There are many site grading related objectives to achieve during pre-development reclamation (Phase 0). The objectives include: Repairing site from previously unfinished development grading; Performing site-wide geotechnical observations and, where appropriate, mitigation for future development; Restoring existing geological hazards (i.e. steep escarpments and active stream banks); Grading the overall site to facilitate future development; and Reclaiming open space areas directly adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement and buffering the Rio Grande Trail (i.e., wildlife mitigation and trail mitigation) As presented in HP Geotech's Report, the entire site is located within a general hazard area related to regional conditions associated with the possible development of sinkholes. Although the risk is considered low, the recommendations presented by HP Geotech include the need to perform geotechnical observations to ensure the entire Project Site can be cleared for development either through observation or through geotechnical mitigation. These observations will be performed during the site grading efforts. The field observations will be targeted at seeking out areas of questionable soil conditions. Should an area(s) be observed, additional investigations (e.g. drilling) will be performed to a level representative of the development features being planned as described in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Many areas on the Project Site contain debris that must be removed prior to initiating grading activities for it presents a safety hazards for those accessing and working on the site. Once the debris has been removed, all surficial soils in areas being graded will be properly prepared (i.e. cleared, grubbed and ripped) to receive the placement of fill. This preparation will ensure a cohesive transition between existing and newly placed fill. Fill material will be placed in lifts of no greater than 2 feet and compacted per geotechnical specifications and to design grades presented on the Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. All areas of disturbance (i.e. cut or fill) will be completed to within 1 foot of the designed final grades using on-site materials and then properly amended top soil will be placed and prepared for specified vegetation as Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 127 described in Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and provided for by the Landscape Plan. (4) Drainage Improvements The major permanent drainage features will be constructed as a component of this pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) effort. The drainage features being constructed include: Major project channels Pond and detention basins As described in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, Reclamation Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, once constructed the major stormwater conveyance (i.e. channels) and storage facilities (i.e. ponds or detention basins) will be lined to minimize water infiltration. The liners will either be constructed of natural (e.g., compacted clay) or engineered (e.g., HDPE) material. In addition to lining, the systems will be sloped and vegetated to limit erosion and facilitate natural surface water treatment (i.e. lessen downstream nutrient loading). The construction of these facilities in advance of development will allow drainage and erosion control to be better managed during the interim period between pre-development restoration and development (or permanently if development were not to occur), provides for a program to manage runoff during development construction in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, mitigates concerns regarding infiltration of surface waters on geologic and soils conditions, and will virtually eliminate incursions into the naturalized open space areas during subsequent (5) Revegetation including Wildlife and Rio Grande Trail Mitigation Vegetation associated with this pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) effort consists of both temporary and final revegetation activities. The open space areas located along the RFC Conservation Easement and common areas along the Rio Grande Trail and adjacent to Cattle Creek will be revegetated to final development proposed conditions in an effort to provide wildlife and trail mitigation and provide these buffers with an advanced growing period. In addition, areas planned for future development will be temporarily vegetated to minimize dust and protect areas from surface water induced erosion. Some development areas may also be temporarily vegetated with agricultural seed mixes or with trees and shrubs to be used onsite for future landscaping. All revegetation and landscaping will be completed in accordance with the Landscape Plan (Series LA 01-03 of the Drawing Package), Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U), and PUD Guide. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 128 These efforts will be specifically coordinated with the RFC and RFTA pursuant to the applicable easements. b) Development Reclamation Development reclamation is addressed in detail by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and shall be coordinated with the Landscape Plan (Series LA 01-03 of the Drawing Package) and PUD Guide depending on the nature and timing of disturbance. Where the Project Site is disturbed for initial development of infrastructure, and community facility and home construction reclamation in the form of revegetation and landscaping efforts must be performed in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as coordinated with the landscaping requirements of the Landscape Plan (Series LA 01-03 of the Drawing Package) and PUD Guide. Following completion of initial development construction, reclamation is controlled by the PUD Guide and Design Standards. The controlling documents ensure that all land disturbances will be reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of Section 7-212 of the ULUR. 2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the program of reclamation provided by the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 and the controlling documents associated with development activities [i.e., Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Landscape Plan (Series LA 01-03 of the Drawing Package) and PUD Guide (including Design Guidelines)] all land disturbance activities will fully conform to Section 7-212 of the ULUR. The land disturbance activities should have no adverse impacts on vegetation and should result in enhancing the Project Site over existing conditions both in advance of development and at the conclusion of development. Required permits must be obtained for all pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) activities and will be controlled by the reclamation agreement to ensure that the pre-development reclamation (Phase 0) is completed or may be completed in accordance with the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) and is fully protective of the environment. IV. SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES This section assesses the sand and gravel resources in accordance with the requirements of C.R.S. 34-1-301 et seq., as requested by Kathy Eastley in a letter dated August 18, 2010 (Appendix O). Although requested by Garfield County staff to address the statutory requirements identified, the provisions of C.R.S. 34-1-301 et seq. are only applicable to populous counties. A "populous County or populous counties of the State" means any County or city and County having a population of sixty-five thousand inhabitants or more according to the latest Federal decennial census. The last decennial census (2000) reports the population of Garfield County is 43,791. Even if we assume that the 2010 decennial census results are issued prior to the consideration and approval of the rezoning and subdivision applications, estimates made in August 2010 by the State of Colorado Demographer's Office and U.S. Census Bureau indicate that Garfield County's population is still below the minimum threshold for when these Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 129 specific statutory provisions apply (57,646 and 56,293, respectively). The statute specifically states in CRS 34-1-301(2) states unequivocally that the statutory requirements "shall have no application outside such populous counties". If the population of Garfield County exceeds, 65,000, C.R.S. 34-1-305(1) states in pertinent part that no board of County commissioners shall by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. A "Commercial mineral deposit" is defined by the statute as a natural mineral deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel, and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geologic, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, State, or nation. A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS RMG Engineering Group prepared a Mineral Resource Study (Appendix P) which assessed whether the sand and gravel resources at the Project Site have significant economic or strategic value to the area, State, or nation. RMG Engineering Group notes that surficial soils throughout the Project Site have been mapped as clays, silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders. These materials are generally considered suitable for use as interior and exterior backfill, but are considered to be an uneconomical industrial resource due to the current zoning of the property, developing residential and commercial uses surrounding the property, natural resources values associated with RFC Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River, the proximity to and dissection of the site by the RFTA ROW which is used as a part of the Rio Grande recreational trail and preserved by the RFTA and Public Utilities Commission as a rail corridor, and the potential presence of groundwater as indicated in the HP Geotech preliminary geotechnical investigations. RMG Engineering Group concludes that it is their professional opinion that more economical sources of sands and gravels for industrial/commercial mineral extraction are available elsewhere within Garfield County and that the Project Site deposits do not constitute a deposit that has significant economic or strategic value to the area, State, or nation. B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The resources will be reused at the Project Site to the extent practicable and as a means of eliminating required import material. Proposed infrastructure (including beading materials), berms, geotechnical and edge treatments, and other proposed features associated with the development of REC will require significant sand and gravel resources. It is anticipated that much of this demand may be met by onsite materials through minimal processing. No significant economic or strategic value to the area, State or nation was identified by RMG Engineering Group. Therefore, even if it could be determined that C.R.S. 34-1-301 Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 130 et seq. applies to the Project Site, the development of the Project Site, as proposed, would comply with said statutory requirements. No mitigation is proposed or required. V. FISCAL IMPACTS Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) conducted a fiscal impact analysis, evaluating the potential impacts of the Project on Garfield County revenues and operating costs. The intent of the analysis was to provide an estimate of the potential impacts of new development on County revenue and the corresponding demand for services over time. The Fiscal Impact Analysis is included in Appendix N. The methodology utilized does not represent a full-scale regional economic model, but rather estimates expenditures and revenues based on a variety of techniques and applies factors to try to represent the expenditures and revenues in simple terms. As a result, numbers should not be viewed as absolute but as number designed to provide a sense of the benefits or costs associated with the Project. The numbers generated are best used for comparing alternatives to determine the relative impact of alternative developments and relative magnitude of potential fiscal impacts. A comprehensive regional economic model would be the best approach to trying to understand the specific fiscal impacts and attribute direct assessments to a project. Developing such a model is far outside the scope of this Project. The fiscal impacts identified herein are not appropriate for defining or assessing a fee to the Project to cover potential impacts. The Fiscal Impact Analysis found that the Project results in an ongoing net fiscal impact of to Garfield County of -$26,000 annually upon Project buildout, but that the negative fiscal impact is not felt until 2042 as a result of the continuing benefit of one time revenues. If affordable housing were to be removed from the Project, the Project would have a net positive fiscal impact to Garfield County of $664 dollars annual plus $716,000 in one time revenues. When compared to other residential development in Garfield County, the Fiscal Impact Analysis finds that on a per unit basis, the River Edge generates a burden of $72 per unit which is $663 better than the current average cost of $735 per unit to Garfield County of existing residential development. As a result of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, the Project has insignificant or no adverse impacts on Garfield County revenues and operating costs. No mitigation is proposed or necessary. A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The Fiscal Impact Analysis details the existing budgetary conditions in Garfield County. The fiscal modeling effort identifies the County's expenditures and assigns them to household based on a series of methods, per capita, per dwelling unit, or per average daily population. Total General Fund Revenue for the County is estimated at approximately $52.4 million in 2010. Revenue to the remaining funds is estimated at $16.6 million for Human Services, $25.0 million for Road and Bridge, $13.4 million for Capital Improvements, and $1.3 million for Public Health. In sum, annual expenditures to be incurred by Garfield County are estimated at approximately $464,000 in 2021 (two years after buildout). A breakout by Fund is as follows (2021): Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 131 Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County General Fund are estimated to total approximately $261,000. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Human Services Fund are estimated to total approximately $24,000. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Road and Bridge Fund are estimated to total approximately $76,000. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Capital Expenditures Fund are estimated to total approximately $99,000. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the Public Health Fund are estimated to total approximately $4,000. As a new development in the County, the proposed project will generate additional revenue streams to each of these funds in the form of increased property tax, sales tax (point of sale and point of origin), specific ownership tax (automobiles), and charges for services. These revenues are divided into two major categories: one-time and ongoing revenues. One-time revenues are realized only during the construction period and include building permit and plan check fees as well as sales tax generated from locally- purchased construction materials. Total revenue generated to the County is estimated at approximately $438,000 in 2021 (two years after buildout when new property tax is fully realized). In addition, total one- time revenue is estimated at $1.3 million at final buildout. A breakout by fund is as follows (2021): Total revenue generated to the County General Fund is estimated at approximately $204,000 annually. Total revenue generated to the County Human Services Fund is estimated at approximately $10,000 annually. Total revenue generated to the County Road and Bridge Fund is estimated at approximately $129,000 annually. Total revenue generated to the County Capital Expenditures Fund is estimated at approximately $39,000 annually. Total revenue generated to the County Public Health Fund is estimated at approximately $15,000 annually. Specific Ownership Tax, which is distributed across a number of funds, is estimated at $42,000 annually. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 132 B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Fiscal Impact Analysis found that based on projected growth in the mid-valley area in Garfield County and estimated project capture of 15-25 percent, the Project is projected to absorb between 30 and 60 units annually. The mid-valley area of the Roaring Fork Valley is projected to add between 3,100 and 3,700 new housing units through 2025. At a project capture of 15-25 percent and construction beginning in 2013, projected buildout of 366 units is estimated to be complete and fully absorbed by 2019. During the construction of the Project, a total of 841 temporary annual construction jobs are created over the construction period. This figure represents the sum of annual employment. The peak annual employment during this period is estimated to be 141. Not all employees will be working on the site at any one time. Revenues generated from this construction employment including revenues generated by related industries benefiting from purchases associate with the Project including sand and gravel, concrete, asphalt, etc. are not included in the assessment of County revenue generation and to be consistent, the costs incurred by the County in relationship to this employment are also not included. These revenue and costs are assumed to offset each other. The Project results in an ongoing net fiscal impact of-$26,000 annually to Garfield County at project buildout including affordable housing. Annual ongoing revenue is estimated at $438,000 in 2021 (two years after project buildout when property tax is fully-realized). Annual ongoing expenditures are estimated at $464,000 in 2021. This equates to a per unit impact of -$72 annually. The project is expected to generate $1.2 million of building permit revenue during construction and $50,000 of sales tax revenue on locally-purchased construction materials excluding sales tax that will be generated by home furnishing and other improvements conducted by buyers. Summing one-time revenue with annual ongoing net fiscal impacts results in the cumulative net fiscal impact in 2021 (two years after project buildout) of positive $566,000. Holding all revenue and expenditures constant, the cumulative net fiscal impact will cover annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through the year 2042. If affordable housing is excluded, the ongoing fiscal impact of the proposed development is neutral (positive $664 annually). As a result, on a cumulative basis (including one-time revenue) the Project generates a positive net fiscal impact of $716,000 and remains positive in perpetuity. The provision of affordable units is a requirement of Garfield County. These units generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of lower market values and household incomes. The regulatory requirements for providing affordable housing is a choice specifically made by Garfield County with the knowledge that the revenues associated with these lower value units do not cover the cost incurred by Garfield County in providing for the units. As with the assessment of market rate units under this fiscal impacts assessment approach, there is added value to the overall economy associated with producing workforce housing including affordable housing and ancillary revenue produced to Garfield County in association with that economic activity that is not fully accounted for by a model of this type. To truly understand the overall economic impacts associated with the Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 133 development activity, an economic model of the region would be required which is beyond the scope of this Analysis and requirements imposed by on the Project by Garfield County staff. The model results reported are best understood and used to define the fiscal impact of the Project in relative terms. Although the impact model produces what appear to be "absolute" revenues and costs, the revenues and expenditures reported as findings are based on assessment and professional judgment and are subject to inherent modeling errors, and as explained herein do not fully account for the overall economic activity associated with the Project or the associated economic and deferred costs impacting Garfield County. Therefore in order to avoid misrepresentation and use of the results of the Analysis, the model results have been further summarized in terms of existing verses proposed development to provide a better picture of the costs of this Project to Garfield County. Comparing the fiscal impact of River Edge to 365 units of existing development, using average home prices and household size, the annual net fiscal impact to Garfield County finances is $242,000 less, or on a unit basis, $663 per unit less impactful to Garfield County than the average existing residential development in the County. To determine the difference in impact between existing development and the proposed River Edge, EPS tested 365 units at the countywide average home price and household size. The average revenues and expenditures generated by existing residential development were then compared to the Project. Based on the above, the fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generate an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000, compared to the - $26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for REC. This demonstrates that while the River Edge has a negative impact on County finances, the impact is less than existing residential development in the County. As a result of the analysis, the potential fiscal effect of the Project on Garfield County is likely to be insignificant. No mitigation is recommended or appropriate. The projected income/revenue impacts are within the margin of error associated with this type of Analysis. VI. VISUAL ANALYSIS This section addresses the relationship between the Project and the visual resources of the Project Site within its associated context. This assessment of visual impacts was prepared by Ian Butler, Project Architect of AXXE Group, LLC and 8140 Partners, LLC. This assessment conforms to the requirements of Section 5-502.G.2 of the ULUR. This assessment of visual impacts is supported by graphic materials (Appendix Q Visual Analysis) representing the Project's character as might result from the standard contained in the PUD Guide and Landscaping Plan; photographs of the Project Site (Appendix Q Visual Analysis); and Project Site maps including grading (Series ESO2 of the Drawing Package), landscaping (Series LA01-03 of the Drawing Package), illumination plans (Series LT01 of the Drawing Package), vicinity and location maps (Appendix B), and road network map (Appendix R). Although open space standards in Article VII of the ULUR appear to give support to development plans that provide open space that buffers development from adjacent developments and external roads, ridgelines, and any Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 134 designated view sheds (Section 7-503.A.4); and in relationship to mineral extraction (Section 7-814), pipelines (Section 7-815), telecommunications (Section 7-823), and gravel pits (Section 7-840), the Project includes none of the uses for which visual standards have been adopted. The ULUR standards only address visual impacts in general terms in Sections 7-301.D and 7-703 which are detailed in the Visual Resources inset and general terms in association with a PUD in Section 6-202.C. The Project lies within the visual corridor as mapped in the 2030 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and supported by Section 7-703 of the ULUR. General ULUR Standard of Review: Visual Resources "Section 6-202.C Visual Impacts. The layout and design of the PUD shall preserve views and vistas, construction on ridgelines that are visible from major roadways or residential development shall be prohibited, and the design shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment." "Section 7-301 Compatible Design. The design of development associated with the land use change shall be compatible with and enhance the existing character of adjacent uses. D. Buffering. Buffering shall be installed to mitigate visual, noise or similar impacts to adjacent property whenever adjacent uses are in a different zoning district. Section 7-703 Standards Within View Protection Overlay. Development shall be located in such a manner that minimizes the visual impact of associated structures along the skyline at the crest of the ridge from an established view corridor identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The consideration of visual impacts and aesthetics consists of a description of the visual resources that might be affected by the Project; the criteria applicable to evaluating the effects; the analysis of whether and how the Project would alter visual resources or the perception of those resources; and the determination of whether alteration of those visual resources resulting from the Project are considered to be adverse. For purposes of this Analysis, aesthetic or visual resources are defined as the natural and built landscape features that can be seen by the observer from readily accessible existing vantage points. The overall visual character of a given area results from the combination of natural landscape features including landforms, water, and vegetation patterns as well as the presence of built features such as buildings, roads and other constructed elements. The visual assessment is based on: (1) field observations of the Project Site and surroundings; (2) public planning documents; (3) review of topographic maps; (4) aerial and ground-level photographs of the Project area; (5) project drawings and technical Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 135 data supplied by the Project design team; and (6) visual simulations which portray the Project’s appearance from representative viewing locations. This Analysis has determined that the potential visual effects associated with the Project are substantially mitigated by the proposed scale and landscaping and that the Project has no adverse visual impacts. Further, the Project conforms to Sections 6-202.C, and 7- 301.D and 7-703 of the ULUR in that appropriate and adequate buffers and open space is provided along the edges and the Project does not impose itself upon any ridgelines or stand in substantial juxtaposition against any key landscapes identified by the 2030 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS The following describes the basic context of the Project Site for purposes of understanding the area and visual resources within the viewing frame. 1. REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXT Situated in southeastern Garfield County and the mid-valley areas of the Roaring Fork River Valley, the Project Site occupies 160 acres of undeveloped land between the developed CMC intersection just north of the Project Site and residential development to the west and south. Exhibit 1 in Appendix B indicates the Project location and its relation-ship to key roadways and community areas. A major highway, SH-82, traverses the western edge of the Project Site. This corridor is the only route connecting Glenwood Springs and I-70 to Aspen to the south. The highway is important is a key connection to all areas south of the City of Glenwood Spring for serving residents of the County and as a through route from I-70 to Aspen. It is the only major route serving Aspen during the winter month and a primary route during summer months. While SH-82 is not designated as a Colorado Scenic Byway, it does afford periodic views of the areas tall peaks as well as valley and hillside landscapes. Therefore, views comprising the backdrop of hills and ridgelines juxtaposed against open valley floors are recognized and valued natural landscape features subject to protection and consideration in the 2030 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Project is planned for an area that is not currently developed. The Project Site’s current use is one of agriculture (grazing), and it provides its neighbors with an open-space, rural view, with a residential backdrop to the south and west, and a light commercial backdrop to the north and east. 2. EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS: PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The landscape at the Project Site is characterized by relatively flat to gently sloping agricultural fields that drop from SH-82 to the riparian corridors along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. Elevations at the site range from about 6025 to 6000 feet. A series of photographs are presented in Appendix Q to document the existing appearance of the site and its context. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 136 Natural features include a Project Site that is sparsely covered with grasses and forbs, a riparian area with trees and shrubs along the Roaring Fork River, and a grassed and highly disturbed Cattle Creek. A backdrop of hillsides and ridgelines dominate the Project Site’s visual character. The Project Site’s vegetation pattern involves a limited palette as does the adjacent Roaring Fork River riparian area. During dry summer months the green tree canopies along the Roaring Fork River contrast with golden yellow to light brown grass-covered Project Site. In the spring, both trees and grassland display some varied shades of green, and bare-branched deciduous trees appear in contrast to this otherwise grassy landscape setting. In winter, the site is dominated by browns with some variation in browns offered by the riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River. Undeveloped, open grazing lands still occupy a majority of the hillsides to the site’s east, west, and southwest although the lower hillsides to the west and east are scared by several roads and residential and commercial development. The Project Site shares boundaries or located in close proximity to four existing single-family residential and commercial development areas: Ironbridge to the west, Aspen Glen to the south, the CMC commercial and residential area to the north and the Cattle Creek employment area to the east along SH-82. The immediate surrounding landscape context for the Project is visibly affected by this suburban residential and highway commercial development pattern. 3. PROJECT VIEWSHED AND PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDORS The general area from which the Project Site is visible, known as the Project Viewshed, includes close range and more distant viewing locations in the vicinity. Because of intervening development, topographic breaks, and vegetation along the Roaring Fork River, the area of the Project Viewshed is somewhat limited. The Project Site is not visible in its entirety from any single ground-level public vantage point. In general, the Project Site is not seen by the public from areas located to the north and south due to a lack of public roads and existing development. Visibility is primarily from the west and east. Most of the Project Site is visible from close range locations along public streets to the east and west including SH-82 and CR-109. The Project Site is also visible from private residential properties in this area. Portions of the site can also be seen from some more distant vantage points from hillside development. a) Close Range Views from the East SH-82 parallels the eastern boundary of the Project Site and is separated only by the RFTA ROW along part of the Project Site’s eastern edge. As seen from this close range vantage point, sparsely covered grass covered slopes appear in the foreground. Trees and denser vegetation punctuate the backdrop of the lower area of the Project Site along the Roaring Fork River, with more distant views generally occurring above and well beyond the Project Site in the form of hillsides and ridgelines. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 137 b) Distant Views toward the Site More distant views of the site are obtained from CR-109 and Ironbridge to the west. The distances from these view areas is generally from 1/4 to 1 mile. The Project Site generally sits well above the river so screening provided by the Roaring Fork River riparian vegetation is general ineffective as a screen but does offer the foreground element for Ironbridge residents and a mid-range element for travelers on CR-109. The development site is apparent in the mid-range viewshed for properties and transportation corridors to the east. The backdrop to the Project Site includes SH-82, hillside road cuts and development, with higher peaks in the distance. 4. PROJECT CHARACTER The Project is described in Section II.B of this Analysis. The following represent some of highlights the physical characteristics of the Project which are most pertinent to the Project’s potential aesthetic and visual effects. a) Siting of Residential Development The conservation values associated with the RFC Conservation Easement has influenced the placement of residential sites, which would be primarily in the relatively level areas above and setback from the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. Advantages of this strategy are that it focuses development in the more geologically stable areas of the Project Site and reduces the area subject to disturbance by development and roads. Conversely, this strategy locates the bulk of the development at the higher elevations of the site, and potentially renders the development to be subject to increased visibility from offsite locations. b) Retention/Replanting of Trees Most of the trees on the site are in the riparian areas. The Project avoids these areas with the result that, no mature trees would be removed. In addition, installation of new trees would take place both in common open space areas and on private residential lots. Large vegetative buffers and open space areas are planned and the development is screened by vegetation and berms located near the RFTA ROW. c) Grading The Project Site would be re-contoured and revegetated in a manner designed to blend in with the natural appearance of the surroundings and more consistent with pre-development site conditions that existed prior to grading conducted in association with Sanders Ranch PUD. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 138 d) Open Space Undeveloped areas make up nearly 50% of the Project Site. Most of these community spaces are located in open space buffers around the development area. e) Architectural Character - Residential The residential architectural character and aesthetic envisioned for the Project will encompass most of these attributes: An efficient, orderly, asymmetrical, functional floor plan, articulated through to the exterior expression; A human scale entry; Traditional in appearance, echoing craftsmanship of the past; Thoughtful orientation of the building to the site and sun, the presence of exterior “rooms” (porches, patios, decks, courtyards), which allow for natural extensions of indoor living space. The character will also be further honed by the adoption of the following design parameters as part of the PUD Guide and Design Guidelines, as appropriate. These parameters are graphically represented on figures SK05 through SK10, with a preliminary Outline Specification and Material Sample board demonstrated on figure SK11 (Appendix Q). The parameters include: Building Form: Neighborhood residential homes are to be intimately scaled and massed, cohesive with their modest floor plans. Homes should be scaled proportionately to their surrounding context and environment so that homes are appropriately sited and massed in harmony with both the natural and built environment. Building Massing, Composition and Articulation of Form. The following principles will guide the massing, composition, and articulation of building forms: (1) Efficient, functional footprint; (2) Predominantly two story volumes, combined with single story elements; (3) Pitched roof forms, with modest overhanging eaves and rakes; (4) Intimately and human scaled front entry; (5) Porches, front and/or rear to create transitions to two story elements; (6) Use of dimensional timber trusses, and; (7) Articulated porch columns, beams and ancillary framing, combined with appropriate exposed wood architectural detailing. Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 139 Roof Composition: Primary pitched roofs either gabled or hipped, creating habitable spaces within. The roof composition may also contain secondary lower pitched roofs of dissimilar material. Roof Pitches: Primary roof forms are to have pitched roofs. Secondary roof forms will be at a reduced pitch comparable to primary roof forms. Tertiary roof elements are restricted to dormers, with roof pitches in sympathy, not direct contrast. Eaves and Rakes: Modest overhanging eaves and rakes in sympathy with the building size. Roof Dormers: Roof dormers and their use are encouraged to expand the indoor useable living space and to punctuate roof mass where appropriate. Non-functional decorative dormers are to be avoided. Balconies and Railings: Functional balconies are encouraged to expand indoor living spaces. Oversized or disproportionate balconies are to be avoided. Railings are encouraged to be an extension of the home aesthetic. Solid or partial-solid balustrade detail may be acceptable to increase occupant privacy. f) Architectural Character – Neighborhood Center The Neighborhood Center architectural character and style will be the guiding force in establishing and reinforcing the character and ambience for the entire residential development. The Neighborhood Center is graphically depicted in the Conceptual Site Plan and Elevation Options contained in figures SK01 through SK04 (Appendix Q). The following will guide the look and feel of the neighborhood Center. Building Form: Traditionally structures built on Colorado ranches and homesteads have been constructed and established over a period of phases, generations and years. This additive approach will provide the framework for the massing, form and scale of the Neighborhood Center. The forms will represent an interpretation of traditional ranches and homesteads that have grown and evolved over the years. Building Massing, Composition and Articulation of Form: The following principles will guide the massing, composition, and articulation of building forms: (1) Functional and ‘user friendly’ intuitive building layout; (2) Where appropriate, the establishment of recreational paths Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 140 in and around the Neighborhood Center is encouraged, providing the opportunity for the creation of unique spaces within and around the building(s); (3) Covered connections between structures are to be functional and scaled proportionately within the overall composition; (4) Exterior walls fronting pedestrian spaces will break down their mass to create more comfortable ‘people scale’ environments; and (5) The articulation of building frontages forming covered areas providing protection from the immediate environment. Roof Composition: Moderate to steep roof pitches and broad roof overhangs supported by cantilevered exposed structure allow solutions for the displacement or containment of snow and ice at pedestrian interfaces. Primary roofs are allowed to break pitch at or near the exterior wall plane to create interest and to further handle snow and ice containment. Gabled and Hipped roof articulation is the preferred roof expression for all primary roof forms. Secondary roof forms located in primary roof forms are primarily for the creation of habitable space or the inlet of natural light. Tertiary roof forms can be introduced to create visual interest. Roof Pitches: Primary roof forms are to have pitched roofs. Secondary roof forms will be at a reduced pitch comparable to primary roof forms. Tertiary roof elements are restricted to dormers, clerestory windows and roof ventilation devices, with roof pitches in sympathy, not direct contrast. Eaves and Rakes: Eaves and rakes in sympathy with the building size. Roof overhangs at pedestrian interfaces are to be generous to allow adequate protection from the elements. Windows, Roof Dormers and Openings: Window openings are to be designed in sympathy with the orientation of the building(s), with northern facades having smaller openings, and southern facades opening up to solar exposure. Judicious use of large or picture windows for impact and view capture is the desired approach. Window reveals should be deep set, to reinforce the solidity of the structure. Balconies and Railings: Balconies and terraces can be accommodated within the overall composition to provide an expansion of interior space. Balconies should be sited so as to minimize the negative impacts of the elements, particularly snow and ice build-up. Maintenance should be Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 141 considered when incorporating these elements. Railings should be designed in sympathy with the overall functional aesthetic. g) Design Guidelines Design Guidelines will be employed to ensure the character and aesthetics of the Project will be maintained to the requisite standard of quality. Residential neighborhoods have been planned to maximize views and minimize visual impact from existing communities. Open space trails and parks have been planned to promote health and interaction by creating clear circulatory patterns and recreational nodes, reinforcing a strong sense of place, home and community. The Project has been carefully planned to provide a unique landscape for residential community living. One of the primary purposes of the guidelines will be to protect the areas of existing landscape that have intrinsic value, namely the riparian edges to both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, and the areas contained within the conservation easements. The project has been planned to guard and shelter the character of these valuable site features and landscape areas from unsuitable development and to drive the direction toward sensitive, appropriate site improvements. The design guidelines for the Project are broken into several components that are included in the Design Guidelines or PUD Guide, as appropriate. These include: General Guidelines would apply to all the buildings and site work, covering setbacks, grading, height, architectural form, materials, colors, uses, features permitted in the public view, and green design criteria. Site Specific Guidelines refer to specific types of sites and lots defined in relation to shape, slope, and visibility. Lots that fall into these special categories would be further subject to either modifications of the General Guidelines or development under a set of lot-specific guidelines. Landscape Guidelines include criteria for tree preservation, planting and garden design, acceptable landscape materials, and planting methods criteria. The landscape guidelines also include provisions for protecting existing trees, grasslands, and wetlands in open space areas as well as establishing new naturalized planted areas. Specific goals of landscape design envision the neighborhood in terms of habitat enhancement and low-impact design include: (1) To enhance homeowner and public access to the natural settings; (2) To ensure that revegetation, fencing, trails and pathways, lighting and other site design elements establish Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 142 the qualities of a rural neighborhood and, where appropriate, ease transitions to neighboring properties and/or adjacent open space. Design Guidelines will pertain to all site improvements, and shall encompass the following areas: I. Introduction II. Definitions III. Administration IV. Neighborhood Center Site Planning Guidelines Architectural Guidelines Landscape Architectural Guidelines V. Residential Single-Family Site Planning Guidelines Architectural Guidelines Landscape Architectural Guidelines VI. Residential Duplex-Family Site Planning Guidelines Architectural Guidelines Landscape Architectural Guidelines VII. Affordable Housing Site Planning Guidelines Architectural Guidelines Landscape Architectural Guidelines B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIO N MEASURES The principal vehicle for evaluating the potential impacts of the Project on aesthetics and visual resources is the representation of future visual conditions representing ‘full build out’ scenarios provided by the concept sketches. Figure SK12, ‘Aerial Perspective – Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 143 Looking North shows the proposed development at full build out as viewed from an elevated position south of the site. Figure SK13, ‘Aerial Perspective – Looking South shows the proposed development at full build out as viewed from an elevated position north of the site (Appendix Q). It is important to note that in order to graphically depict the overall development, it is necessary to ‘elevate’ the viewing position. These viewing positions are not accessible from any vantage point, and are an indicative ‘birds eye’ view of the development. Therefore, the readily accessible locations for viewing the Project Site are at significantly reduced elevations, and conversely allow a greatly reduced and less impactful view of the development. The development is residential in nature, comprising of homes between one and two and-a-half stories in height, and therefore is attributed with an accepted residential scale. The Project Site is situated at an elevation below that of SH-82. This low, residential scale in concert with the lower elevation of the Project Site effectively places the development below the line of site from SH-82. The concept sketches indicate that, although the Project would be visible in the lower foreground as viewed from SH-82, the development would lie on the valley floor considerably below the skyline defined by the ridge and backdrop of hillsides and mountains, thereby protecting these views and vistas. The design direction for the character and scale of the residential architecture is in keeping with the adjacent and neighboring communities. The character proposed is traditional and functional in nature, with sensitive scale and massing sympathetic to the built and natural environment that surrounds it. Furthermore, the overall scale of the Project is minor when compared with the mass of the mountainous backdrop. Factoring in the 15-year landscaping scenario, most of the vertical construction of the development will be visually softened and screened by the trees proposed as part of the Landscape Plan. Taking these factors into account, no adverse potential impacts were identified with respect to views of the Project from SH-82. The Project Site is within the margin of the viewshed when viewed from CR-109 and Ironbridge. However, due to the distances involved, the structures on the Project Site cannot obstruct views of the hills and mountains to the east of the Project Site. While the development is visible, the scale is small compared not only with the hillsides and mountains in the background, but also with foreground features. By the time the landscaping reaches 15 years of growth, it will further enable screening of the Project Site. Taking these factors into account, no adverse potential impacts were identified with respect to views from the east. In all cases, the view at initial construction has a ‘raw’ look that has yet to be softened and integrated into the mature proposed landscaping. With growth however, the landscaping becomes increasingly effective in providing a vegetative screen that obscures the buildings from all viewpoints. In effect, the extensive tree-planting program transforms the existing conditions, an open, unnatural, modified landscape, Impact Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 144 into a landscaped, integrated, residential neighborhood community. This change is not considered a potentially adverse effect. No potentially adverse effect is found with respect to scenic vistas or ridgelines. No potentially adverse effect is found with respect to individual scenic resources or to views from State or County routes. The Project has no adverse impacts on visual resources. The Project, as a result of the design, landscape, site planning, and open space features, conforms to Sections 6-202.C, 7-301.D and 7-703 of the ULUR. VII. CONCLUSION This Analysis has determined that the Project, as proposed, has minimal adverse impacts on the parameters identified in Section 4-502.E. or the sand and gravel, fiscal, or visual resources of the County. A majority of the potential impacts have been or may be reduced to result in no or insignificant adverse impacts with the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project or recommended by this Analysis. Further, this Analysis has determined that the Project is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the ULUR with respect to the required components of this Analysis as defined by Section 4-502.E (See Table I.D.2 in Section I.D of this Analysis). The identified potential impacts, description and mitigation measures, and post-mitigation impacts for each potential impact are summarized in Table I.D.1 in Section I.D of this Analysis. Appendix A: Pre-Application Meeting Summary App. A-2 App. A-3 App. A-4 App. A-5 App. A-6 App. A-7 App. A-8 App. A-9 App. A-10 App. A-11 App. A-12 App. A-13 App. A-14 App. A-15 App. A-16 App. A-17 App. A-18 App. A-19 App. A-20 App. A-21 App. A-22 App. A-23 Appendix B: Vicinity and Location Map 12/01/10VICINITY MAPExhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325App. B-2 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. B-3 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. B-4 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. B-5 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. B-6 Appendix C: Adjacent Ownership, Land Use and Zoning Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532504/18/2011DEVELOPERS PROPERTY ANDRIVER EDGE COLORADO PROPERTYApp. C-2 04/13/2011ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP MAP(2 OF 2)Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325App. C-3 LEGENDAGRICULTURALCOMMERCIALCONSERVATORYOPEN SPACEPARKPUBLIC LANDSRESIDENTIALROWUTILITYRESIDENTIAL (VACANT)ADJACENT LAND USE MAPExhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. C-4 12/01/10ADJACENT ZONING DESIGNATION MAPExhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325App. C-5 Appendix D: Part I Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings RFTA Access Control Plan and Rail Corridor and Trails Rules and Regulations Introduction Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 1 otak F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 This document contains the proposed Access Control Plan for the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA). The plan area covers the Roaring Fork Railroad corridor between Glenwood Springs and Aspen, Colorado. The plan is intended to implement the planning requirements of the Great Outdoors Colorado Conservation Easement, and contribute to the Comprehensive Plan for the Roaring Fork Railroad. The Access Control Plan is comprised of the following four parts: • Part I Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings • Part II Railroad Access Control Plan Maps • Part III State Highway 82 Access Control Plan Map • Part IV Appendices (Design Specifications, and Supporting Technical Memoranda) It will be necessary for RFRHA, Colorado Department of Transportation, and local jurisdictions in the plan area to enter into intergovernmental agreements to implement the Access Control Plan. App. D-2 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 2 otak F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 Sections: 1.0 Title. 2.0 Purpose and Intent. 3.0 Authority. 4.0 Jurisdiction. 5.0 Interpretation, Conflict, and Separability. 6.0 Amendments. 7.0 Existing Crossings Defined. 8.0 New Crossings Defined. 9.0 Owner Defined. 10.0 Responsibility for Crossings. 11.0 Design Standards for Up-Grading Existing Crossings. 12.0 Consolidation of Crossings. 13.0 Crossing Improvements and Maintenance (Existing Crossings). 14.0 Crossing Repair Permits. 15.0 Closure of Crossings and Alternatives to Closure. 16.0 RFRHA Fees for Maintenance and Repair of Crossings. 17.0 Policy and Design Standards for New Crossings. 18.0 Permits for New Crossings and Consolidations. 19.0 Adjustments to Standards. 20.0 Coordination of Development Review With Local Jurisdictions. App. D-3 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 3 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 1.0 Title. This Policy shall officially be known, cited, and referred to as the Policy for Managing Crossings of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority, hereinafter “this Policy”. 2.0 Purpose and Intent. A. The purpose of this Policy is to: 1. Protect the health and safety of rail passengers, railroad employees and service personnel, and those using adjacent property. 2. Minimize the number of new road crossings over the railroad. 3. Ensure the safe operation of existing railroad crossings, and require maintenance thereof. 4. Consolidate existing railroad crossings when practicable. 5. Implement the Conservation Easement objectives, by avoiding adverse impacts to the open space, recreation, scenic and wildlife values of the corridor, and adjacent lands that add to the scenic value and enjoyment of the corridor. When adverse impacts cannot be avoided, they shall be mitigated to the extent practicable. B. This Policy is intended to promote stewardship of the railroad by the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA), adjacent property owners, and the Aspen Valley Land Trust, in cooperation with local governments. It is also intended to facilitate coordination with the requirements and review procedures of other permitting agencies, including but not limited to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). 3.0 Authority. The Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority Board of Directors, hereinafter “Board”, is vested with the authority to review, approve, conditionally approve and disapprove applications for construction, reconstruction, realignment, consolidation, and modification of railroad crossings. The Board’s authority emanates from intergovernmental agreements, adopted pursuant to Section 29-1-201 C.R.S. App. D-4 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 4 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 4.0 Jurisdiction. This Policy applies to all railroad crossings located within the Roaring Fork Railroad Right of Way and Easement. 5.0 Interpretation, Conflict, and Separability. A. Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Policy shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfare. This Policy shall be construed broadly to promote the purposes for which it is adopted. B. Conflict. 1. Public Provisions. This Policy is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute, or other provision of law except as provided in the Policy. Where any provision of this Policy imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other provision of this Policy or any other ordinance, rule or regulation, or other provision of law, the provision which is more restrictive or imposes higher standards shall control. 2. Private Provisions. This Policy is not intended to abrogate any easement, covenant or any other private agreement or restriction, provided that where the provisions of this Policy is more restrictive or imposes higher standards or regulations than such easement, covenant, or other private agreement or restriction, the requirements of this Policy shall govern. Private provisions, when not in conflict with this Policy, shall be operative and supplemental to the Policy and determinations made under the Policy. C. Separability. If any part or provision of this Policy or the application of the Policy to any person or circumstance is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the judgement shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved in the controversy in which the judgement shall be rendered and it shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of the Policy or the application of them to other persons or circumstances. The Board hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of the Policy App. D-5 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 5 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 even without any such part, provision, or application which is judged to be invalid. 6.0 Amendments. For the purposes of protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare, and consistent with the purpose and intent in Section 2.0, the Board may from time to time adopt amendments to this Policy in accordance with RFRHA procedures. 7.0 Existing Crossings Defined. An “existing crossing” means a railroad crossing by a public street, private drive, trail, utility, or similar facility. Permitted crossings are those that are recognized by RFRHA as permitted, based on the following criteria: A. The crossing had a license agreement, easement, or pending contract effective at the time of RFRHA’s purchase of the railroad from Southern Pacific Transportation Company (List “A” on file with RFRHA); or B. RFRHA, CDOT, and GOCO approved the crossing as a “proposed new crossing” at the time of the railroad purchase (List “B” on file with RFRHA); or C. RFRHA has approved an access permit and the crossing has been constructed in accordance with the permit. This includes crossings initiated by RFRHA. (See also, “Policy for Reviewing New Railroad Crossings”.) D. All other crossings are considered encroachments. RFRHA is hereby authorized to remove or close encroachments, or take appropriate legal action to do the same. (See also, Section 15.0- Closure of Crossings and Alternatives to Closure.) 8.0 New Crossings Defined. A “new crossing” means a new railroad crossing by a public street, private drive, trail, utility, or similar facility approved by RFRHA or the PUC (as applicable), which did not exist prior to the effective date of this Policy. App. D-6 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 6 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 9.0 Owner Defined. “Owner” means the owner of real property or the contract purchaser of real property of record as shown on the current assessment roll in the office of the county assessor; or the holder of an easement. Owners may include public bodies, as in the case of a street right-of-way, or a private entity (e.g., private land owners and utility companies). 10.0 Responsibility for Crossings. A. Public and Utility Crossings. All public and utility crossings shall be maintained in good condition, and in a manner that does not conflict with railroad operations. The owner(s) of a public street or utility crossing shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing their respective crossing(s), and obtaining required permits from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), RFRHA and any other applicable permit authority (e.g., local government or CDOT) prior to commencing such work. RFRHA shall be responsible for maintaining rail crossing signals, signs, gates, and associated hardware. The PUC is the permit authority for public crossings. B. Private Crossings. RFRHA shall be responsible for repair and maintenance of private crossings and shall charge a fee to cover its costs, in accordance with Section 16.0. RFRHA is the permit authority for all private crossings. C. Construction Specifications. RFRHA shall maintain general construction specifications for crossings, and use the specifications to determine compliance with this Policy. RFRHA shall provide copies of the specifications to any person upon request, and make the specifications available for public inspection during normal office hours. 11.0 Design Standards for Up-Grading Existing Crossings. All crossings shall meet the minimum design standards in subsections A through D. An owner may be required to upgrade an existing crossing that does not comply with the design standards when a subdivision or site development is proposed, or when the crossing itself is proposed to be improved, realigned, or reconstructed. RFRHA shall coordinate with local jurisdictions and the PUC to determine when improvements are required. App. D-7 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 7 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 A. Grade-Separated Crossings. RFRHA shall use the guidelines in subsections 1-6, below, in determining when an existing private crossing must be grade-separated. The standards may also be used by RFRHA in providing comments to the PUC to assist in the agency’s review of public crossing requests. Public crossings are subject to review and approval by the PUC. 1. All collector streets, arterial streets, and highways (public streets) should be grade-separated when they exceed an exposure factor of 35,000 (number of trains daily times average daily traffic count); except that the exposure factor threshold may be increased to 75,000 for street crossings in areas with slower train speeds (e.g., within municipalities and unincorporated urban areas). In such areas, rail crossings are treated as streetcar type crossings, for purposes of analysis and in determining design standards. 2. Exposure factors are determined based on projected rail usage and trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual), or other traffic forecasting model if approved by RFRHA. 3. Private streets and drives that meet the exposure factors in subsection 2, above, shall be grade separated, except as the standard may be modified under Section 19.0 - Adjustments. 4. RFRHA or the PUC may require grade separation for crossings which have exposure factors less than the levels in subsections 2 and 3, above, when necessary due to unsafe site conditions (e.g., sight distance, road grades, accident history, etc.). 5. An exception to the grade-separation requirement may be approved for public streets (i.e., existing at-grade crossings may continue to exist) if a similar public street at-grade crossing in the vicinity is closed or consolidated, subject to PUC approval. App. D-8 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 8 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 6. All grade-separated crossings shall comply with applicable RFRHA, CDOT, and County roadway standards, and provide for minimum clearances in accordance with Table 1: Table 1 Minimum Vertical and Horizontal Clearance for Grade-Separated Crossings Vertical Clearance Horizontal Clearance Rail above highway 16.5 feet - from the bottom of the structure to the roadway surface 2 feet - from edge of travel lane to a concrete barrier. Distance may increase to include a roadway shoulder if required by the local or state roadway agency* Highway above rail 22.5 feet - from top of rail to the underside of the structure 8.5 feet - from the centerline of the track to the fixed obstruction Source of Rail Above Highway Clearance standards is CDOT. Source of Highway Above Rail Clearance standards is CPUC. Note: these are minimum standards. In some situations, greater clearance may be required to address unique site conditions. Required dimensions shall be determined through project design. *Where a maintenance road is adjacent to the track there must also be room for the road under the structure. All vertical members of the structures adjacent to the rail must be designed to withstand crash loading from the train. App. D-9 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 9 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 B. Public At-Grade Street and Highway Crossings. All public at- grade street and highway crossings require the following improvements, constructed and maintained in conformance with the details and specifications in Appendix A., and subject to review and approval by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC): 1. Cross-bucks with reflector tape, warning lights and bells; 2. Automated railroad protection gates to stop traffic from all directions; 3. Permanent audible warning device required at crossings in residential areas (i.e., where whistle ban is in affect); and 4. Approved platform with median to prevent driving around gates. 5. Signage and pavement markings on the roadway approach, in accordance with MUTCD, to identify the railroad crossing. 6. Other safety improvements as may be required by the PUC. C. Private At-Grade Vehicle Crossings. Private at-grade vehicular crossings require the following safety improvements, constructed and maintained in conformance with the standard details and specifications in Appendix A.: 1. All private at-grade crossings shall provide an approved platform. 2. Private crossings with low projected traffic volumes (e.g., fewer than 50 average daily trips) and field approaches require stop signs and cross-bucks with reflector tape. Paved crossings shall also provide stop bars and pavement markings to identify the railroad crossing. 3. Private crossings with projected average daily traffic of between 50 trips and 450 trips shall provide cross-bucks with reflector tape, warning lights and bells, in addition to the stop signs, stop bars and pavement markings. 4. Private crossings with projected average daily traffic greater than 450 trips shall, at a minimum, comply with the standards for public at-grade crossings (Sections A and B, above). App. D-10 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 10 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 5. RFRHA may require safety features in addition to those identified in subsections 1-4 (i.e., grade-separated crossings, overhead mast arm lights, etc.), when necessary due to unsafe site conditions (e.g., sight distance, road grades, accident history, etc.). D. Trail Crossings. Trail crossings of the railroad require PUC approval and shall comply with the Public Recreation Trail Plan. Grade-separated crossings are required, except that RFRHA may recommend approval grade-crossings when all of the following conditions are met: 1. Site constraints (e.g., slope, right-of-way/easement width, etc.) prevent development of a separated crossing; 2. The crossing is essential to implement the Public Recreation Trail Plan; and. 3. The at-grade trail crossing, at a minimum, provides: stop signs; cross-bucks; bells; and pavement markings for both directions of travel (when trail is paved). Other safety features such as z-crossings may be required as site conditions warrant. Construction and reconstruction of trail crossings shall comply with the Public Recreation Trail Plan and the details and standard specifications in Appendix A. E. Underground Utilities. All existing underground utility crossings shall continue to be underground. Any above-ground utilities may continue to cross the railroad above ground, but shall comply with the vertical clearance standards in Table 1, as a minimum. Reconstruction of utility crossings shall comply with the details and standard specifications in Appendix A. 12.0 Consolidation of Crossings. RFRHA encourages consolidation of existing crossings whenever practicable. RFRHA may require consolidation of private crossings (i.e., a private crossing with another private crossing; or a private crossing with a public crossing) when a new crossing is proposed adjacent to one or more existing crossings under the same ownership or control; or when an opportunity for consolidation exists through a land division, joint railroad/other transportation improvements, or proposed site development. Private App. D-11 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 11 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 crossings shall be consolidated when the criteria in subsections A through E, below, are met. (The criteria may also be used in recommending the consolidation of public crossings, subject to PUC approval.) A. Site Feasibility. Consolidation is feasible based on site topography, existing parcel configuration and use, right-of-way, and property ownership; or can be made feasible through reasonable requirements (e.g., lot line adjustments, dedication of right-of-way, easements, grading, or other improvements). B. Out of Direction Travel. The out-of-direction travel which would result is a reasonable trade-off for the safety benefit to be gained from the consolidation. C. State Highway 82. Consolidation would not adversely impact operation or safety of State Highway 82. Access consolidations that affect Highway 82 shall also be subject to review and approval by the issuing authority as defined in the State Highway Access Code (Volume 2, CCR 601-1). D. Consistency with City and County Standards. Access consolidations that require city or county land use approval, or require a street access permit from a local jurisdiction, shall also be subject to review and approval by the applicable local jurisdiction(s). See also, subsection C. E. Consistency with Conservation Easement. Existing crossings shall be consolidated so long as the trail, open space, recreational, parks, and wildlife uses and values will not be impaired. F. Permit Required. The owner shall obtain a permit in accordance with Section 18.0. 13.0 Crossing Improvements and Maintenance (Existing Crossings) A. Improvements. Existing crossings may be improved either as part of a general railroad improvement initiated by RFRHA, or by separate proceedings. RFRHA shall determine the materials to be used and specifications for all construction, in accordance with this Policy. Improvements shall require a permit in accordance with Section 18.0. App. D-12 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 12 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 B. Maintenance. It is the duty of each owner to maintain their roadway approach in good repair. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, removing rocks, soil, vegetation and other material that may fall, slide, wash, or be placed onto crossing areas; and maintaining the railroad crossing free of other obstructions (e.g., snow storage, parked vehicles, equipment, etc.). RFRHA retains the right to undertake supplemental maintenance, as necessary, and shall be responsible for maintaining all crossing surfaces. See also, Section 16.0 - RFRHA Fees for Maintenance and Repairs. 14.0 Crossing Repair Permits. RFRHA shall issue Repair Permits upon receiving a written or verbal request from a public entity or utility company seeking to repair grade-crossings (i.e., roadways and rail platforms within RFRHA right-of-way). The permit shall prescribe the kind of repair to be made, the material to be used, and specifications therefore. Any person desiring to construct or reconstruct a crossing shall first obtain a permit as prescribed in Section 18.0. 15.0 Closure of Crossings and Alternatives to Closure RFRHA shall have the authority, per existing license agreements and easements (as applicable), to close private crossings. In order to further the public health, safety, and welfare, RFRHA will work cooperatively with property owners to identify options and alternatives to closure; e.g., crossing realignment, relocation, consolidation, grade separation, conditions on type of access, and similar measures, as appropriate. RFRHA will also work cooperatively with the PUC and local governments to resolve conflicts related to public crossings. 16.0 RFRHA Fees for Maintenance and Repair of Crossings Owners shall pay an annual fee to RFRHA to cover the cost of maintenance and repair of crossings (i.e., crossing surfaces and equipment). The fees shall be based on projected annual maintenance, repair and replacement costs, and include overhead costs to administer the maintenance and repair program. The fee schedule shall be adopted by the RFRHA Board after a public hearing, and kept on file at RFRHA offices. In the event that an entity refuses or is unable to pay the annual fees, RFRHA may initiate closure of the crossing in conformance with Section 15.0, or seek alternative dispute resolution. 17.0 Policy and Design Standards for New Crossings. App. D-13 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 13 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 As a general policy, RFRHA seeks to minimize the number of railroad crossings to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the railroad and to avoid adverse impacts to the open space, trail, recreational, parks and wildlife uses and values of the corridor. New crossings generally are prohibited, except that they may be allowed for public street crossings when approved by the PUC, and private crossings may be approved by RFRHA when property access cannot reasonably be provided by an existing permitted crossing or another route. New crossings, when permitted, shall comply with the following standards in subsections A-B, below. Crossings may be improved either as part of a general railroad improvement initiated by RFRHA, or by separate proceedings. RFRHA shall determine the materials to be used and specifications for all construction, in accordance with this Policy. A. Type I Crossing. A Type I (Grade Separated) Crossing is the preferred type of crossing. This type of crossing may be permitted by the PUC for public crossings; and by RFRHA for private crossings when access cannot reasonably be provided by an existing permitted crossing, subject to the following standards: 1. The crossing is grade separated, and complies with the horizontal and vertical clearance standards in Section 11.A.6 (Table 1). 2. The crossing does not adversely impact the operation of the rail facility. 3. The crossing does not adversely impact the trail or open space values (recreation, wildlife, scenic), or such impacts are mitigated. 4. In the case where a roadway requires an access permit and railroad crossing approval (access to State Highway 82, county right-of-way, etc.), an access permit has been approved in accordance with the State Highway Access Code or local government standards, as applicable. 5. The applicant shall receive a crossing permit, in accordance with Section 18.0. App. D-14 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 14 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 B. Type II Crossing. A Type II (At-Grade Crossing) may be permitted in areas where the train operates at slow speeds (i.e., a streetcar). Type II crossings may also be approved when the owner closes or consolidates existing rail crossing(s), and the new at-grade crossing complies with subsections 1 through 6, below: 1. Overall Crossing Safety. The consolidation and/or closure improves overall crossing safety in the vicinity; 2. Improvements. The new crossing provides the following improvements, constructed in conformance with the details and specifications in Appendix A: a. Cross-bucks with reflector tape, warning lights and bells; b. Automated railroad protection gates to stop traffic from all directions (except sidewalks and trails, which shall provide “Z-crossing or other acceptable safety measure); c. Permanent audible warning device required at crossings in residential areas (i.e., where whistle ban is in affect); and d. Approved platform with median to prevent driving around gates. e. Signage and pavement markings on the roadway approach, in accordance with the standards in Appendix A, to identify the railroad crossing. f. Other safety improvements as may be required by the PUC for public crossings. 3. Permit for Consolidation. The applicant shall receive a permit for consolidating crossings, in accordance with Section 18.0. PUC approval is required for public crossings and RFRHA approval is required for private crossings. 4. Restriction on New Crossings to Serve New Parcels or Lots. No new at-grade crossings will be permitted to serve any new parcels or lots. “New” means the lot or parcel was created (i.e., by plat or deed) after the App. D-15 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 15 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 effective date of this Policy. New at-grade crossings may be permitted to provide access to lots or parcels created prior to the effective date of this Policy if no other access is available. 5. Denial of Private Type II Crossing. RFRHA retains the right to deny an at-grade private crossing request if the crossing: a. Could be a grade separated crossing as listed in A above; b. Could be a combined with or eliminate other at- grade crossings as listed in B above; c. The crossing would adversely impact the operation of the rail facility; d. The crossing would adversely impact the trail, open space, recreation, wildlife uses or values of the rail corridor, and such impacts cannot mitigated; e. Other reasonable means of access to the lot or parcel exist; or f. The crossing would impose an unusual and excessive burden on RFRHA (e.g., maintenance, repair, safety monitoring, or similar burden). 6 Comments on Type II Public Crossing. RFRHA may provide comments to the PUC recommending approval, approval with conditions, or denial of type II public crossing requests, based on findings of fact made in conformance with a-f, above. 18.0 Permits for New Crossings and Consolidations. When a private crossing is located within RFRHA right-of-way, owners shall obtain permits from RFRHA prior to commencing work on rail crossing improvements and consolidations. When the crossing is located within CDOT right-of-way, owners shall obtain permits from both CDOT and RFRHA. App. D-16 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 16 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 When a public crossing is proposed, the owner shall obtain required permits from the PUC.) The following permit process applies only to RFRHA permits: A. Applications. Permit applications for private crossing improvements and consolidations within RFRHA right-of-way shall provide the following: 1. Complete application form. RFRHA shall keep a standard application form for crossing improvements and consolidations. The application form (available from RFRHA offices) shall provide address and contact information for the owner and his/her contractor(s); contractor license/registration number(s); description of the proposed improvements; construction schedule; proposed traffic control measures; and other pertinent information as deemed necessary by RFRHA. 2. Application fee to cover the cost of processing the application. The fee schedule shall be adopted by the RFRHA Board, and kept on file at RFRHA offices. 3. Site plan prepared by a qualified professional (e.g., engineer, surveyor, planner, landscape architect). The site plan shall be drawn to a scale of at least 1 inch equals 40 feet. It shall list materials to be used, and provide section details and construction specifications in accordance with RFRHA standards. Applications for crossing consolidation shall include two site plans: one for the proposed crossing, and one for the crossing(s) to be closed. 4. The RFRHA Executive Director, or his/her designee, shall be responsible for deeming an application complete when subsections 1-3 are met. B. Approval Criteria. Permits for private crossing improvements and consolidations shall comply with the following approval criteria: 1. All of the applicable standards of this policy and the specifications in Appendix A; 2. The State Highway Access Code, as applicable; App. D-17 Part I - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 17 otak Con F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 3. Any applicable local government land use and access permit requirements (e.g., permit to construct in the public way); 4. Conservation Easement requirements, including: avoidance of adverse impacts to the open space, recreational, parks, and wildlife uses and values of the railroad corridor to the extent practicable. This shall be accomplished through careful consideration of alternative access alignments, consolidations, construction techniques, materials, and appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., erosion control, landscaping, screening, buffering, etc.); and 5. Plans for crossings to be closed shall provide a permanent barrier in accordance with RFRHA specifications (Appendix A). C. RFRHA Review Process for Private Crossings. The following review procedures shall apply to applications for private crossings (i.e., new crossings and consolidations). For public crossing application procedures, please refer to the PUC. 1. Upon receiving a complete application, RFRHA shall distribute copies of the application to the affected local government(s) (i.e., those with land use jurisdiction), the Pitkin County Open Space Board, and Aspen Valley Land Trust, as applicable, for review and comment. RFRHA shall notify by certified letter all property owners directly adjacent to the parcel for which a permit is requested that an application for crossing improvements and/or consolidation has been made. A copy of said notice shall be posted at RFRHA offices and at the proposed crossing location. Additionally, RFRHA shall cause the notice to be published in at least one local newspaper. Notices shall provide information on the proposal, how to obtain copies of application materials, public meeting date and how to submit written comments. RFRHA reserves the right to make additional referrals as necessary to assist in its review. 2. RFRHA shall accept written comments on the application from agencies and other interested parties for a period of 30 days after the initial notice is posted at RFRHA offices. App. D-18 Part 1 - Policy for Managing Railroad Crossings Roaring Fork Railroad Access Control Plan- Final Draft 18 otak Continued F:\FINAL DRAFT\PLAN.WPD June 18, 1999 3. The RFRHA Board shall conduct a public meeting within 45 days of the application being accepted as complete. At the hearing, the Board shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions based on findings of fact all complete applications. The Board may also continue the hearing, as necessary, to request additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Notice of the Board’s decision shall be mailed to the applicant, and copies of the notice shall be provided to affected local government(s), state agencies, and interested parties who request a copy of the decision. The Board’s decisions are final, except that decisions may be appealed to the court with jurisdiction. 5. RFRHA shall keep files with all permit decisions and findings of fact. 19.0 Adjustments to Standards. The RFRHA Board may approve adjustments to this Policy upon finding that an adjustment is necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. “Adjustment” means a modification, waiver, or exemption to a standard or procedure. RFRHA shall prepare a notice when adjustments are made. The notice shall contain findings of fact, and be kept on file at RFRHA offices. 20.0 Coordination of Development Review With Local Jurisdictions It is the policy of RFRHA to participate in the review of planning, zoning, and development applications, as necessary, to safeguard the interests of the railroad. RFRHA will coordinate with property owners, local governments, CDOT, and other affected agencies, in order to identify railroad crossing requirements at the earliest possible stage in the development review process (i.e., preferably before a formal application has been submitted to a local jurisdiction), consistent with the Access Control Plan Intergovernmental Agreement. Review by RFRHA staff of local planning, zoning, and development proposals does not imply approval of RFRHA permits or local land use applications. App. D-19 1 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Rail Corridor and Trails Rules and Regulations ARTICLE 1 - RESTRICTIONS ON TRAIL USE The following restrictions apply to all trails built or maintained by RFTA and the 34 mile rail corridor, previously known as the Aspen Branch of the Rio Grande and Western rail line, running between Glenwood Springs and Woody Creek, in which RFTA has a property right including fee simple ownership and railroad easement (the “Rail Corridor”), and to all trail easements and rights of way under the jurisdiction of RFTA. 1.1 Motorized vehicles restricted. No motorized vehicles whatsoever, including automobiles, trucks, farm or agricultural vehicles, motorcycles, motorbikes, motor scooters, go-carts, golf carts, snowmobiles, motorized bicycles, motorized skateboards, mopeds or all-terrain vehicles will be allowed on any RFTA trail or Rail Corridor at any time. The following vehicles and uses are exempted from this prohibition: 1.1a Government maintenance vehicles, ambulance, law enforcement, fire or other emergency vehicles will be allowed to enter onto RFTA trails in the course of carrying out their normal duties. 1.1b Snowmobiles or snowcats may be allowed onto RFTA trails to set cross-country ski tracks or to otherwise install or maintain Nordic trails. 1.1c Construction or maintenance vehicles owned and operated by private contractors may enter onto RFTA trails subject to specific permission. 1.1d Agricultural, ranch or personal vehicles belonging to specific owners, their employees or assigns, may enter onto RFTA trails subject to the terms of easements or agreements between RFTA and individual landowners. 1.2 Allowed Uses. Bicycles, pedestrians, skates, skateboards, non-motorized scooters, and baby strollers are allowed on all trails at all times unless specifically prohibited and posted otherwise. All trail users will travel at safe speeds at all times. 1.3 Right of Way. In areas of mixed use, i.e. horses, bicycles and pedestrians, equestrians have the right of way in all circumstances. All traffic is to yield to equestrians. Bicycle or other wheeled traffic is to yield to pedestrians. 1.4 Fires Prohibited. Fires are prohibited at any location and at all times within the Rail Corridor, trails, trail easements or trail facilities, including, but not limited to, parking areas, trail shoulders and borders, bridges and structures. The burning of noxious weeds or vegatation is excepted. 1.5 Trespass Prohibited. It is prohibited to trespass from trails onto adjacent private lands except where specifically authorized by the owners or occupants of private lands. 1.6 Equestrian Use. Equestrian use is restricted to unpaved trail areas unless otherwise posted. Horse traffic is restricted to walk or trot speeds. Horses must be under control at all times. Buggies, carts, or other horse-drawn vehicles are prohibited from all trails. 1.7 Stop Required. Trail users shall stop at all road and driveway crossings and yield to any motorized traffic, except where the trail or Rail Corridor takes precedence over a driveway crossing, in which case driveway users shall yield to trail or Corridor users. Trails and highways will be posted with informational signs designating intersections. 1.8 Dogs on Leashes. Dogs on trails must be leashed at all times. App. D-20 2 ARTICLE 2 - RESTRICTIONS ON RFTA TRAILS AND RAIL CORRIDOR The following restrictions apply to all RFTA trails and the Rail Corridor. These restrictions also apply to public use provided in any conservation easement held by Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, unless superceded by the specific terms of the conservation easement in question. Nothing contained herein limits or otherwise modifies rights reserved to the owner of fee simple property subject to a conservation easement held by Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. 2.1 Camping Prohibited. Overnight camping is prohibited on Rail Corridor and RFTA Trails Properties. 2.2 Commercial Activities Limited. Commercial activities, provision of services, or any activity for which a fee may be charged are prohibited on any Rail Corridor land except when specifically authorized.. The exception to this will be the loading or unloading of horses, bicycles or other conveyances or persons at trailheads pursuant to use of the RFTA trail or Rail Corridor or other public trail systems. 2.3 Closed Areas. Entry onto or use of Rail Corridor lands posted as closed is prohibited. 2.4 Fires Restricted. Fires are prohibited in all locations within the Rail Corridor at all times. It is unlawful to burn fires in any location at any time in a careless manner, to leave a fire unattended, to burn any explosive or toxic materials, or to fail to extinguish fires completely. 2.5 Hang-Gliding Restricted. Hang-gliding or operation of any motorized or non-motorized aircraft, glider, parachute, paraglider, or balloon for landing or take-off is prohibited. 2.6 Motorized Vehicles Restricted. Motorized vehicle are restricted to parking areas, driveways and other areas specifically posted for motor vehicle occupancy. The exception to this shall be RFTA or other maintenance or construction vehicles specifically authorized for access, emergency vehicles acting in the line of duty, or private vehicles specifically authorized by RFTA. 2.7 Domestic Livestock Prohibited. Domestic livestock is prohibited on RFTA trails and Rail Corridor properties except where specifically permitted pursuant to an agricultural lease. It is unlawful to chase or molest any livestock using RFTA properties. All gates, fences, and other entry points must be closed in areas where livestock is permitted. 2.8 Firearms Prohibited. It is forbidden to discharge firearms or projectile weapons of any kind including paint ball guns on any RFTA Rail Corridor or trails properties. The exception to this will be law officers discharging weapons in the line of duty. 2.9 Hunting Prohibited. All Rail Corridor and Trails Properties are closed to hunting unless specifically authorized. Hunters may cross the Rail Corridor to access adjacent public lands. . 2.10 Disorderly Conduct Prohibited. Disorderly conduct of any kind is prohibited on the Rail Corridor and trails properties. Disorderly conduct includes, but is not limited to, making any coarse, annoying, derisive or obviously offensive utterance, gesture or display which tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Also fighting, littering or abandonment of private property, making excessive or amplified noise that would tend to disturb the peace and quiet of adjacent residents or occupants, or any other activity that deliberately infringes on the ability of others to use or enjoy the trail or trails facilities. 2.11 Hazardous Activities Prohibited. Hazardous activities of any kind are prohibited on the Rail Corridor and Trails Properties. Hazardous activities are defined as those activities, which might constitute or contribute to a hazard to the safety of any person. Such activities include, but are not limited to, use of fireworks or other explosives, use of remote-controlled craft, launching of missiles, and sledding. Exceptions or additions to these restrictions may be made in specific locations or circumstances. App. D-21 3 2.12 Boating Restricted. Boat launching and landing is limited to sites designated for that purpose. Boating is limited to free-flowing waterways and is prohibited on intermittent or permanent lakes or ponds on Rail Corridor lands. Man-made structures pursuant to boating such as access ramps, docks, kayak courses, or buoys are prohibited except in locations specifically authorized. 2.13 Vandalism Prohibited. Vandalism, property damage or removal of resources or facilities is prohibited on any Rail Corridor or trails property. It is unlawful to remove, damage, deface, mutilate or destroy any structure, poster, sign, marker, fence, gate furniture, vegetation, rock, or any object of scientific or historic value or interest. 2.14 Dogs and Pets Restricted. Dogs, cats, and other pet animals must be leashed on trails. Posted leash laws or County or municipal laws or ordinances must be obeyed. Owners of uncontrolled dogs observed on the Rail Corridor or trails properties will be subject to being ejected from the trail or Corridor. Dogs or other animals are prohibited in areas specifically posted for such prohibition. Dogs observed molesting or menacing any person, wildlife or livestock may be destroyed. Dog waste must be picked up and disposed of off-site in a safe and sanitary manner by owners or keepers. 2.15 Fishing Restricted. Fishing is permitted according to the regulations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, except where otherwise posted. A valid fishing license is required. Fishing is restricted to free-flowing waterways and is prohibited in intermittent or permanent ponds or lakes except where expressly allowed. Fishing access is by designated trails only. 2.16 Wildlife Protected. Wildlife is protected on all Rail Corridor and Trails Properties. Hunting, trapping, chasing, molesting, harming, removing, killing or otherwise disturbing wildlife on the Rail Corridor and Trails Properties is prohibited at all times and under all circumstances, with the exception of fishing (See Paragraph 2.15, above). Damaging or destroying the habitat of any species of wildlife is prohibited. Removing or destroying, native plants, bird or reptile eggs is prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit trapping for research, management and monitoring purposes. 2.17 Littering and Waste Disposal Prohibited. Any disposal, depositing or abandonment of trash, garbage, grass cuttings, brush, tree limbs and branches, yard wastes, litter, waste paper, waste food products, human or animal wastes, toxic materials, oil and other mechanical waste products, animal parts, fire ash or other combustion byproducts, or other waste products on Rail Corridor or Trails Properties other than in designated containers and locations is prohibited. 2.18 Structures and Notices Prohibited. Construction of any kind not specifically authorized by the RFTA Director of Property and Trails or RFTA Corridor Manager is prohibited. Activities prohibited include, but are not limited to, excavations, ground clearing or grading, erection of permanent or temporary structures, erection of signs, posting of bills, notices or posters, fencing or clearing of vegetation, except that clearing of weeds is allowed. ARTICLE 3 – PERMITS AND SPECIAL USES REVIEW STANDARDS This Article establishes review standards for uses of Rail Corridor or trail properties allowed only by permit. RFTA may approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for special uses of the Rail Corridor or trail properties. 3.1 The Rail Corridor Manager or RFTA Director of Property and Trails may condition a certification of consistency on the applicant agreeing to provide a surety bond in favor of RFTA in the event that a Special Use Permit is granted, in the amount of at least two thousand dollars ($2000.00), or other amount to be determined by the Rail Corridor Manager or RFTA Director of Property and Trails, or his/her designee. All Financial Security will be held for the duration of any special use permit. The bond will be conditioned upon: App. D-22 4 3.1a Faithful compliance with the terms of a special use permit regulations, and policies of Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. 3.1b The restoration and clean up of any site affected by the special use. Any revegetation needed to restore the site shall conform to the adopted Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Corridor and trail Guidelines, including the Weed Policy. 3.2 The Rail Corridor Manager or RFTA Director of Property and Trails may condition certification on the applicants agreement to pay a use impact fee which is commensurate with the additional maintenance costs associated with the proposed use. 3.3 The Rail Corridor Manager or RFTA Director of Property and Trails shall make a written response to either approve of the proposed special use with or without conditions, or disapprove the proposed special use, within 45 days of receiving a written request for a special use. An applicant may appeal the determination of the Rail Corridor Manager or RFTA Director of Property and Trails to the Board of RFTA Directors within 15 days of receipt of the determination. The Board of Directors must issue a final determination within 30 days of hearing an appeal pursuant to this section. ARTICLE 4 – EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS The terms and conditions of Conservation Covenants or Trail Easements or other approved agreements between RFTA and private property owners, other governments or grantors are incorporated into these regulations by reference. To the extent of any conflict between these regulations and the terms of conservation covenants, conservation easements or trail easements, the terms of such covenants or easements will control. Those terms and conditions shall be enforced under the provisions of this regulation as if they were set forth herein. ARTICLE 5 – AMENDMENT The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Board of Directors may amend these rules and regulations from time to time. These rules shall apply to existing Rail Corridor and trails properties and to such trails and Rail Corridor properties as may be acquired by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority from time to time or designated by RFTA as being subject to these rules. ARTICLE 6 – VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES 6.1 Permission to use Rail Corridor or RFTA trails property may be revoked. Failure to abide by these rules for use of the Rail Corridor and RFTA trails may cause RFTA to revoke permission to use or occupy the property. 6.2 Criminal Enforcement. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority shall cooperate with local jurisdictions in reporting and enforcing penalties for violations of Federal, State, County and Municipal Codes occurring on the Rail Corridor and RFTA trails. 6.3 Civil Enforcement – In the event of any activity in violation of these Rules and Regulations, the RFTA Attorney, in addition to other remedies provided by law or specified herein, may institute an injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, enjoin, or abate any unlawful activity, or to remove any improvements on construction resulting from such unlawful activity. In the event that such unlawful activity has damaged any RFTA property, the violator shall be liable for any damage to RFTA property resulting from any such unlawful activity, including, but not limited to, compensation for staff time and for use ofRFTA equipment to repair such damage. Any civil action or proceeding can include a claim to recover all such money damages. ARTICLE 7 – POSTING These regulations, or a summary thereof, will be posted at visible locations on Rail Corridor and RFTA trails properties. Full text of these regulations shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Rail Corridor Manager or the RFTA Director of Property and Trails. App. D-23 Appendix E: RFTA Open Space Easement App. E-2 App. E-3 App. E-4 App. E-5 App. E-6 App. E-7 App. E-8 App. E-9 App. E-10 App. E-11 App. E-12 Appendix F: RFC Conservation Easement App. F-2 App. F-3 App. F-4 App. F-5 App. F-6 App. F-7 App. F-8 App. F-9 App. F-10 App. F-11 App. F-12 App. F-13 App. F-14 App. F-15 App. F-16 App. F-17 App. F-18 App. F-19 App. F-20 App. F-21 App. F-22 App. F-23 App. F-24 App. F-25 App. F-26 App. F-27 App. F-28 App. F-29 App. F-30 App. F-31 Appendix G: RFTA Coordination Letter App. G-2 App. G-3 Appendix H: RFTA Access Easement App. H-2 App. H-3 App. H-4 App. H-5 App. H-6 App. H-7 App. H-8 App. H-9 App. H-10 App. H-11 App. H-12 App. H-13 App. H-14 App. H-15 App. H-16 App. H-17 App. H-18 App. H-19 App. H-20 App. H-21 App. H-22 App. H-23 App. H-24 App. H-25 App. H-26 App. H-27 App. H-28 App. H-29 App. H-30 App. H-31 App. H-32 App. H-33 App. H-34 Appendix I: RFC Coordination Letter App. I-2 Appendix J: Geotechnical Engineering Study App. J-2 App. J-3 App. J-4 App. J-5 App. J-6 App. J-7 App. J-8 App. J-9 App. J-10 App. J-11 App. J-12 App. J-13 App. J-14 App. J-15 App. J-16 App. J-17 App. J-18 App. J-19 App. J-20 App. J-21 App. J-22 App. J-23 App. J-24 App. J-25 App. J-26 App. J-27 App. J-28 App. J-29 App. J-30 App. J-31 App. J-32 App. J-33 App. J-34 App. J-35 App. J-36 App. J-37 App. J-38 App. J-39 App. J-40 App. J-41 App. J-42 App. J-43 App. J-44 App. J-45 App. J-46 App. J-47 Appendix K: Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report epetterson@rmes-inc.com | www.rmes-inc.com po box 833 glenwood springs co 81602 | 970.309.4454 Balanced solutions to complex environmental issues. PENDO solutions ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES R OCKY E COLOG Prepared for: Carbondale Investments, LLC River Edge Colorado Wildife & Vegetation Assessment Report Garfield County, Colorado December 2010 App. K-2 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 2 Table of Contents 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Figure 2: Aerial Photo of Property ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Figure 3: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 7 2 HABITAT CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Upland Habitats ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Riparian Habitats ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Figure 4: Vegetation Communities in Project Area ...................................................................... 10 2.4 Traffic .................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.4.1 Table 1: Current traffic levels on Highway 82 ............................................................ 11 2.4.2 Traffic and Big Game Species ....................................................................................... 12 2.5 General Use of Upland Habitats ..................................................................................................... 12 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................13 3.1 Table 2: Land Use Impacts from Proposed Development ......................................................... 13 3.2 Interim Land Use and Long-Term Reclamation .......................................................................... 14 3.3 Figure 5: Proposed Development Plan .......................................................................................... 15 4 WILDLIFE IMPACT ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................16 4.1 Mule Deer ........................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 GIS-based Impact Assessment Model ........................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Figure 6: Modeled Indirect Impact Zones for Wildlife ............................................. 20 4.2.2 Figure 7: Mule Deer Winter Ranges ............................................................................. 23 4.3 Elk ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 4.3.1 Figure 8: DAU Boundaries ............................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Graph 1: DAU E15 Total Elk Population Estimates ................................................ 29 4.3.3 Graph 2: Calf to Cow Ratio for DAU E15 from 1999 to 2008 ............................... 30 4.3.4 Graph 3: DAU E16 total elk population, 1998-2007 ................................................. 31 4.3.5 Graph 4: Calf:Cow Ratio for DAU E16, 1998-2007 ................................................. 32 4.3.6 Future Elk Populations ................................................................................................... 33 4.3.7 Highway Fencing and Cattle Creek Culvert ................................................................ 34 4.3.8 River Edge Colorado Impact Discussion .................................................................... 35 4.3.8.1 Impacts of the River Edge Colorado Project .....................................................35 4.3.9 Figure 9: NDIS Elk Winter Ranges .............................................................................. 38 4.4 Riparian Habitats ............................................................................................................................... 39 4.5 Great Blue Heron .............................................................................................................................. 39 4.5.1 Figure 10: Great Blue Heron Nesting Activities ......................................................... 46 4.6 Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................................................... 47 4.7 Lewis’s Woodpecker ......................................................................................................................... 47 5 RECOMMENDED WILDLIFE MITIGATIONS ..............................................................................50 5.1 Lighting & Game Use ....................................................................................................................... 50 5.2 Roads ................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.3 Trails .................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.4 Fences .................................................................................................................................................. 50 App. K-3 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 3 5.5 Landscaping and Revegetation ........................................................................................................ 51 5.6 Domestic Dogs .................................................................................................................................. 51 5.7 Domestic Cats .................................................................................................................................... 52 5.8 Bears .................................................................................................................................................... 52 5.9 Birds ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 5.10 Open Space Management ................................................................................................................. 53 6 VEGETATION & NOXIOUS WEEDS ...............................................................................................54 6.1 Upper Bench ...................................................................................................................................... 54 6.2 Lower Bench ...................................................................................................................................... 55 6.2.1 Figure 11: Noxious Weeds Map .................................................................................... 58 7 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................................59 8 APPENDIX I: CDOW NDIS HABITAT DEFINITIONS ...............................................................66 9 APPENDIX II: QUALIFICATIONS OF REPORT AUTHOR .......................................................68 App. K-4 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 4 1 Summary This Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review (Rezoning) and Subdivision Review (Preliminary Plan) for the proposed River Edge Colorado (Project) in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR), as amended. The analysis specifically addresses the requirements of Section 5-502.E.8.a and c of the ULUR. This report also provides recommended mitigation measures. The property to contain River Edge Colorado (REC) is owned by Carbondale Investments, LLC. The site is located on an alluvial bench adjacent to the Roaring Fork River (Figure 1). Historically, the site was likely dominated by basin sagebrush flats (Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata), with patches of mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. pauciflora). During the past 80 years or so, this site was used as a cattle ranch, and the broad, flat terraces were irrigated pastureland. During the summer of 2005, the Bair Chase development began grading of the site for the development of a golf-course and residential community. Midway through grading, the project was terminated, which left the majority of the property with a cobbly surface. Topsoil was salvaged by this early grading process and stored in large piles on the property. A Conservation Easement exists adjacent to the property, and is held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Terms and conditions associated with this easement, as they related to wildlife and wildlife habitat are further disclosed and commented on in this document. Multiple site visits have occurred by the author, including on-site visits with Colorado Division of Wildlife staff. • The property is not within any CDOW mapped mule deer or elk winter ranges, however elk loafing and use of the property is significant during the winter months. • River Edge Colorado is utilizing recent research and peer-reviewed literature to develop its heronry protection measures. Nevertheless some impacts to heronry may still occur. River Edge Colorado is proposing a “no construction” buffer area around the heronry, coupled with berming and vegetative screening. Golden eagles have discovered this heronry and are actively preying upon heron chicks (in 2010). • River Edge Colorado is incorporating a number of “best management practices” to minimize impacts to other wildlife species. • River Edge Colorado has maintained a noxious weed treatment program for the past two years, and is proposing to restore large areas that have been infested with non-native plants and noxious weeds. App. K-5 107°10'0"W 107°10'0"W 107°15'0"W 107°15'0"W 107°20'0"W 107°20'0"W 107°25'0"W 107°25'0"W 39°35'0"N39°35'0"N39°30'0"N39°30'0"N39°25'0"N39°25'0"N39°20'0"N39°20'0"N133 82 82 §¨¦70 §¨¦70 Garfield County Pitkin County Garfield CountyPitkin CountyGlenwood Springs CarbondaleØ FIGURE 01 Project Location V 0361.5 Miles River Edge Colorado Interstate State Higway County Boundary Municipal BoundaryBLM Lands USFS Lands Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 R OCKY M OUNTAIN E COLOGICAL S ERVICES,I NC.5 App. K-6 59705 980 5990 6 000 601 0 6020 5960 5950 603 0 6040 605 0 6060 594 0 6070 6080 6090 6110 6100 6120 61306140 59306150 616 0 617 0 6 1806190 6 200 621062206 2 6 0 6270623062406250628059 2 0 6200 6020 62106080 6140 602 0 6000 6 030 6020 60 40 6 190 6060 6040 6240 61 90 6020 59705950597059906000 60306000617 0 6020 601062 0 0 5 9 7 0 5950 5940 5960 6020 6110 6030 6150 603 0 612 0 605 0 6160 5970596 0 600061606 0406150 600 0 60306220 60106210 6 0 1 0 6100 594 0 59906020 6140 6030595060 4 0 6 150 6040 6010 5990 6 150 6030 6130 5990 60105990 6 0 1 0 6 150 5940 6180 599 0 616 0 6160 6190 6060 5950 6010 6020 597059906030 5950 6070 59806070 5990594059406 020 5990601061 7 0 59406000 6030 6090 5960 6150 6010 5960 6030 61406 130 6180107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 02 Existing Conditions 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major 6ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-7 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N39°28'30"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 03 Project Site 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major Ironbridge PUD Teller Springs PUD Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Plant La Farge Sand & Gravel H Lazy F Mobile Home Community Frywald Subdivision Thunder River Market Elk Springs PUD River Edge Colorado BLM Lands BLM Lands BLM Lands Residential/Suburban Planned Unit Development Rural Commercial/General Commercial/Limited Public Land Scale: 1" = 1,000' Feet 0 1,000 2,000500 7ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-8 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 8 2 Habitat Conditions 2.1 Upland Habitats The majority of the River Edge Colorado (REC) property was graded for the previous Bair Chase project in 2005. During this process, topsoils on the property were salvaged and stored in large stockpiles on the property. These topsoil stockpiles are currently dominated with a variety of ruderal early seral plant species which are not noxious weeds in the eyes of the Colorado State Department of Agriculture, but are often considered “weedy”. Some of these species include white sweetclover (Melilotis alba), flixweed (Descurania sophia), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). While REC began treating noxious weeds in 2007 some noxious weeds persist including kochia (Bassia sieversiana), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). REC has also began seeding topsoil stockpiles and graded areas with a temporary seed mix, consisting of native grasses and annual grasses to increase soil cover, reduce erosion, and help reclaim areas from weeds. The graded areas, bereft of topsoil, are essentially bare, and have very low aerial cover of plant species. Current vegetation cover on the graded areas is approximately 5 to 15%, with the densest vegetation being stands of cheatgrass and kochia. Moderate to large cobble-sized material dominate the surface soils stratum. During site reviews in 2008-2010, unknown grass species were emerging, which may be the temporary seed mix used by REC. 2.2 Riparian Habitats Riparian habitats along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek are dominated by mixed deciduous overstories, with understories dominated by noxious weeds and non-native agricultural grasses. Overstories of narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) are further augmented by silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), river birch (Betula fontinalis), alder (Alnus incana) hawthorne (Cratagus rivularis & C. saligna), boxelder (Acer negundo), Rocky Mountain juniper (Sabina osteosperma), and intermittent ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Many of the cottonwoods along the steep banks above the Roaring Fork River were established from the flood irrigation practices on the upland hay meadows. Therefore many of the cottonwood trees in the area have become decadent, and are dying off due to the cessation of flood irrigation on the property in the past 10 years. Riparian understory vegetation is dominated by the aggressive and weedy reed canarygrass (Phalaroides arundinacea), and agricultural cultivars such as orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromis inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense), and native shrubs such as skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica sbsp trilobata) and wild rose (Rosa woodsii). Noxious weeds include common tansy, field bindweed, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scotch thistle, plumeless thistle, common mullein (Verbascum thapsis), and Russian olive trees(Elaeagnus angustifolia). Cattle Creek supports an aggressive canarygrass population along its entire App. K-9 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 9 reach on the property, which outcompetes most other native riparian plant species. The general conditions of the understory in riparian systems along lower Cattle Creek and along the Roaring Fork River are very poor due to high levels of disturbance resulting in noxious weeds and a prevalence of aggressive, agricultural grasses and canarygrass. However, the native component of the understory habitats along this section of the Roaring Fork River would potentially respond quite favorably to an aggressive noxious weed program. During wetland delineations in July of 2010, the Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was detected occurring in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Approximately 300 individual plants were observed flowering during surveys conducted in August and September of 2010. On-site visits with botanists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Natural Areas Program and naturalists and staff from Roaring Fork Conservancy subsequently occurred, as well as on-site reviews with Regulatory Biologists with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to ensure the long-term persistence of this species within the Conservation Easement area. The REC property does not have any orchid populations, and otherwise potential habitats outside of the banks of the Roaring Fork River have already been compromised by non-native grasses and weeds which have persisted in the riparian areas. Water and wastewater pipelines may cross orchid-occupied habitats if water and wastewater service is provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). If water and wastewater services are not provided by RFWSD then orchid habitats may be avoided. If water and wastewater services are provided by RFWSD then County review of potential impacts to orchids would occur as part of location and extent review (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners 12/6/2010). Further, a section 404 permit application (under the Clean Water Act) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Roaring Fork Conservancy Conservation Easement Approximately 54.4 acres adjacent to the Property are held in a Conservation Easement by the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) since 2000. The easement was granted by Sanders Ranch Holdings in February 2000 in order to protect, maintain and enhance the conservation values of the property including the heronry, Cattle Creek and inherent biological and ecological values. RFC receives $3,000 per month in “stewardship fees” from Carbondale Investments LLC. for stewardship, land management, and monitoring of the easement area, which since the easement was granted in February of 2000 has totaled approximately $387,000. Stewardship by RFC does not include noxious weed treatments, and is the responsibility of the land owner with coordination and approval from RFC. These fees were to be used for signage, habitat improvement projects, restoration and improvement of habitats, as well as annual monitoring. Since the property was placed into the Conservation Easement in 2000 annual monitoring has occurred on the property. RFC also guides once-a-year float trips down the Roaring Fork for the public for educational purposes. App. K-10 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 04 Vegetation 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Agricultural Grass Early Seral Forbs Grasses Native Grasses Wetland Grasses Sagebrush Shrublands Mixed Shrublands Riparian Shrubland Willows Oakbrush Cottonwood Mixed Cottonwood Riparian Forest Water Ditch 10ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-11 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 11 2.4 Traffic Traffic in Colorado is often the leading indirect impact to wildlife habitat and wildlife mortality. Highways are often located in areas of flat benches adjacent to river systems, which bisect upland habitats from riparian habitats. As riparian habitats often attract upland wildlife species, and in some cases congregate wildlife for significant periods of time, increased traffic levels on roadways can often form effective barriers to wildlife movement, and can then fragment habitats by dissuading wildlife from crossing roadways. For some species, the draw of traditional habitats or water can override the fear of traffic, and wildlife will often attempt to cross busy roadways, incurring mortality and thus negative impacts to population levels. Further, for species such as deer and elk, vehicle strikes can often cause significant financial impacts to commuters, through increased insurance rates, direct costs of repairing or “totaling” of vehicles, to costs of hospitalization, injury, and even death to drivers and passengers in vehicles. Elk that cross Highway 82 near the REC property will often wreck a vehicle if struck at or near the posted speed limit (which is posted at 50 to 65 miles per hour along the REC boundary). Forming the eastern boundary of the property is Highway 82. This highway is the main transportation corridor connecting the entire Roaring Fork Valley, servicing Glenwood Springs to Aspen and beyond over Independence Pass to the intersection with US Highway 24 near Twin Lakes, and to Highway 133 from Carbondale to Delta. As such, the highway carries commuter traffic, but also carries regional traffic, heavy equipment and truck traffic, construction traffic, and tourist traffic. Much of this traffic is generated during the morning and evening rush hours, coinciding with daily commuter traffic between bedroom communities in and west of Glenwood Springs, and work destinations is the Snowmass and Aspen areas. Holiday and weekend traffic spikes also occur, and are associated with major holidays given the tourist destination resorts of Aspen and Snowmass Village, and also the Crystal River Valley and the Basalt area. A moderate amount of the traffic that passes by the property is associated with larger regional transit patterns associated with I-70 to Highway 133 traffic, which accesses the Towns of Paonia and Delta and other areas. 2.4.1 Table 1: Current traffic levels on Highway 82 Environmental baseline (Year 2010) and Year 2020, at locations along U.S. Highway 82 between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale (junction with US-133). Traffic Monitoring Point Mile Marker Traffic Volume (CDOT Growth rate a) 2010 2020 Downtown Glenwood Springs .07 29,100 34,222 (1.32) Thunder River Marketplace 7.8 22,900 28,820 (1.47) West of Carbondale (Junction w/ US-133) 11.6 22,400 28,190 (1.47) East of Carbondale 13.5 17,700 23,541 (1.6) a 20-year factor. Source: CDOT website, October 2010. CDOT modeling indicates that by the Year 2020 (i.e., the likely period in which full build out has occurred and full occupation can be anticipated), baseline traffic adjacent to the project will reach approximately 29,000 vehicles per day (Average Annual Daily Traffic [AADT]) (CDOT 2010). App. K-12 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 12 2.4.2 Traffic and Big Game Species Research on traffic impacts to habitat connectivity and wildlife use patterns indicate that traffic levels of 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day (VPD) begin to have significant deterrents to wildlife crossings (Ruediger et al. 2000, Alexander et al. 2005, Gagnon et. al. 2007). Some of the other actions wildlife take when having to cross a road with 4,000-5,000 VPD includes animals avoiding highways altogether (not even trying to cross), failed attempts (animal tries to cross, but turns around due to traffic), injury in crossing (from vehicles strikes), or death. As Highway 82’s traffic is currently near 23,000 VPD, Highway 82 could already be considered a significant barrier to wildlife movement patterns. That said, it is locally common knowledge that elk herds coming down from the Missouri Heights area still cross Highway 82 during the winter and early spring months. Elk have extremely high winter range site fidelity, and are even known to cross Interstate 70 near Avon (with VPDs approaching 31,000) in an effort to access winter ranges. Unfortunately, this means that elk crossing Highway 82 at REC incur high mortality rates from vehicles strikes. It is not uncommon for over 20 animals to die along the REC area alone during one winter, with equal mortality numbers further south along Highway 82 near the Aspen Glen subdivision. Mule deer also have noticeable mortality along this section of highway as well. The exact numbers of deer or elk killed along Highway 82 at REC are unknown. The main reasons why so many animals are killed in this area is vehicle speed, the number of vehicles on the highway, and the time of day when elk try to cross. Interestingly, elk in this area generally attempt to cross Highway 82 during lower traffic periods (before and after daytime traffic spikes). This is a pattern also observed in other elk populations which need to cross busy freeways (Gagnon et. al. 2007). While elk using nighttime periods to cross the highway is when traffic is at its lowest, the visibility of drivers is limited. In 2009 CDOT, in cooperation with CDOW began constructing a game fence along the east and west sides of the highway in order to minimize elk/vehicle strikes. During the winter of 2009 there appeared to be less mortalities, but the elk fence was not complete at that time. The elk fence has been completed as of 2010. The fence also ties into the large culvert at Cattle Creek, which would allow for some elk (and other wildlife species) crossing underneath of SH 82. One-way escape ramps for wildlife have also been installed, which would allow for elk and deer trapped in the highway Right- of-Way (ROW) to exit. While the presence of the fences will definitely limit elks traditional movement to winter ranges in the lower valley, much less mortality to elk will benefit the herd. 2.5 General Use of Upland Habitats Wildlife use of the upland habitats is currently limited by vegetation and foraging abilities. The most commonly observed species on the property was the Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans), which has colonies near the railroad grade. The presence of this squirrel likely attracts incidental foraging by great-horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red fox, gray fox, and coyote; however predator use of the property is likely incidental, as predators would likely prefer to hunt and forage on surrounding higher quality habitats. Predators likely forage out from the REC property into area subdivisions, and native habitats along the Roaring Fork River corridor. Bird use in the uplands is limited to a few species that can utilize the existing habitat conditions. This is generally limited to mourning dove, meadowlark and mountain bluebird, however many other species may be observed within the uplands as they pass through the property to other more suitable habitats in the area. Bird use of riparian shrubland habitats is much more robust, with many different species utilizing the shrubby habitats. As the riparian areas and wetland complexes along Cattle Creek App. K-13 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 13 and the Roaring Fork River are dominated by noxious weeds and reed canarygrass, bird use of these areas is likely compromised. 3 Proposed Development This section provides information on the project, as provided by the developer and edited for this report. The River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development is a proposal to create a “clustered” form of residential development with neighborhood amenities including natural open space, community recreation, parks, and neighborhood agriculture that is design to serve the residents and preserve natural areas and reference the rural character and agricultural roots of the Roaring Fork Valley. The proposed community will include approximately 365 residential units of various sizes and types including 55 affordable homes. Housing types will range from attached homes to small single family attached and detached garden homes, village homes, and larger estate homes. Lot sizes will vary from over 1 acre to 5,000 square feet for single family homes, and 3,500-6000 square feet of land area for each garden home. Over 80 percent of the units back to either proposed active parks or reclaimed open space. A soft trail system is used to connect open spaces and other common elements with the sidewalk network. The residential blocks in the community are small or bisected with soft trails and sidewalks to facilitate walking. Street trees and plantings are proposed to enhance the aesthetics of the street. The community is served with a variety of recreational facilities and a neighborhood center that could include meeting room(s), day care facility, fitness room, offices, kitchenette, restrooms, recreational facilities, and limited commercial use such as a deli/coffee shop. Parks will provide informal recreational opportunities within the community and include tot lots, playfields, and trail system. The west portion of the property is generally set aside as the naturalized area that buffers the existing conservation easement along the Roaring Fork River. The soft trails around the property allow residents to enjoy the river and wetland areas without entering the conservation easement area in conformance with the terms of the conservation easement. Approximately 78 ½ acres of the 159 acre site (49%) is in some form of open space, common area or park. 3.1 Table 2: Land Use Impacts from Proposed Development Land Use Acres Percent of Total Within Development Undeveloped Open Space 40.50 25.44% Common Areas 12.98 8.15% Park 17.08 10.73% Garden/Orchard 5.06 3.18% Neighborhood Center 2.30 1.44% Residential-Low Density 43.92 27.60% Residential-High Density 9.38 5.89% Right-of-Way (Circulation)25.50 16.02% Utility 2.43 1.52% Stormwater Ponds (included in areas above)3.75 2.35% Subtotal 159.16 100% Within RFC Conservation Easement Pond 1.5 Stormwater Channel 0.1 Subtotal 1.6 TOTAL 160.76 100% App. K-14 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 14 3.2 Interim Land Use and Long-Term Reclamation Open Space areas will be reclaimed using local native plant materials, initially focusing on grasses and some sagebrush recruitment and over time forb establishment will also occur. Please see the Reclamation Plan (RMES 2010) for more information on reclamation of Open Space areas. In areas to be developed into residential housing, developed parks, and community gardens there will be interim agricultural use of the land. This would involve the regarding of these areas to produce a level field, re-distribution of topsoil, and the subsequent planting of either grass hay or possibly alfalfa or even shrubs and trees to utilize this land for an undetermined period of time as development occurs on the site. These areas would obviously need to be irrigated during the growing season. As the phased development expands then these areas would then be subsequently developed. There may also be interim reclamation in some areas which are not suitable for agricultural production, but need to be reclaimed and stabilized. In the long term these areas will see future development or conversion into landscaped community common areas, community facilities and gardens or orchards. In general these interim reclamation areas are too steep or topographically challenged or isolated for suitable agricultural utilization. App. K-15 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 05 Landuse 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Undeveloped Open Space Common Area Park Garden/Orchard Neighborhood Center Residential - Low Density Residential - High Density Right-of-Way (Circulation) Stormwater Pond Utility Foot Trail Wastewater Treatment Line 15ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-16 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 16 4 Wildlife Impact Analysis 4.1 Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) occur throughout Colorado, and are relatively common in the west. Colorado’s subspecies (O. h. hemionus) is the largest subspecies. Males can weigh up to 440lbs., but the average size of males is closer to 155lbs. Does are fully grown at 2 years of age, but buck can continue to grow until they are 9 or 10 years of age. During the early 1900s populations of mule deer in Colorado were greatly depleted because of market hunting. The meat was used by newly arrived settlers, and was also shipped east. The advent of a conservation ethic and a Department of Fish and Game led to recovery of this species in the State. Although mule deer populations across the western US declined in the 1950s through the 1970s, mule deer populations in Colorado still increased. In the late 1990s through 2007, mule deer populations across the state have a downward population trend. This is partly due to chronic wasting disease and habitat loss generally in winter ranges. Mule deer occupy all ecosystems in Colorado from grasslands to alpine tundra, but they reach their greatest densities in shrublands on rough, broken terrain, which provides abundant browse and cover. Their wide distribution and general adaptability make for broad diets. However, deer are considered to be browsers (primarily eating shrubs and twigs), as opposed to grazers (who eat mostly grasses). In Colorado, the winter diets of mule deer consist of browse from a variety of trees and shrubs (74%) and forbs (15%). In the spring, browse contributes 49% of the diet, and forbs and grasses make up about 50%. Summer diets are about 50% browse, and forb consumption increases to 46%. Browse use increases in the fall to 60%, and forb consumption decreases to 30% (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Several studies in Colorado have indicated that diets containing 30% or more of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) or juniper (Sabina spp.) reduce rumen microbes and are therefore deleterious (Carpenter 1976, Nagy and Tengerdy 1967, Nagy et al. 1964, Alldredge et al. 1974) and therefore mule deer generally consume no more than about 1% of available sagebrush forage on western rangelands. When heavy snows bury grasses and forbs on such rangelands and force mule deer to consume high amounts of sage and juniper, mortality rates increase due to malnutrition. Mule deer seem to be able to survive without free water except in very arid environments. However, they do drink available water and also eat snow (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mule deer are mostly nocturnal or crepuscular in the warmer months, becoming more diurnal during winter. Activity depends on local conditions including temperature, season, weather, and forage. Over much of Colorado deer are migratory, summering at higher elevations and moving down slope to winter range. In some areas of Colorado, migrations may be over 55 miles, but in most areas, migrations are closer to around 5 miles. The routes followed are often habitual, and deer show a certain amount of fidelity to these routes. Snow depths of 8 to 16 inches appear to trigger fall movements, and depths over 3 feet prevent use of an area (Loveless 1967). In some areas of northwestern Colorado, mule deer begin migrations before snow accumulation (Garrott et al. 1987, as cited in Fitzgerald et al. 1994). They suggest that better quality forage on winter range at that time of year triggers the movements. Throughout the winter, mule deer will move about winter ranges, depending on snowfall and snow melting events, but generally linger on more south facing slopes, where snow depths are shallowest. Spring and summer ranges are most typically mosaics of meadows, aspen woodlands, alpine tundra and Krummholz, or montane forest edges. Montane forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands with good shrubby understories are often favored winter ranges. Because of mule deer seasonal migratory movements, estimation of home ranges is somewhat difficult; however deer appear to be seasonally App. K-17 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 17 sedentary, staying within areas of 100 to 2,000 acres. In areas where the animals do not migrate significant distances, annual home ranges are 1,700 acres to 5,400 acres (Mackie et al. 1982). Migrating individuals show strong winter and summer range site fidelity. In Colorado, mule deer breed in November and December (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Females are in estrus for just a few hours, but will repeat estrous cycles every three to four weeks until bred. About 70% of breeding occurs in a 20-day span in some populations. The does monthly cycles can somewhat explain observations of fawning occurring from late May through late July in Colorado. Yearling females typically produce a single fawn, and older females in good condition produce twins. Fawns are precocial at birth, and typically weigh about 9 lbs. They can consume vegetation at two to three weeks of age but are not weaned until fall. Sex ratios at birth favor males slightly, but with increasing age, females commonly exceed males by ratios of 2:1, 5:1 or higher (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Does are solitary during fawning, but soon form groups of yearlings, does, and fawns when the young a few months old. Mortality in mule deer varies with age class and region. Fawn annual mortality varies from 27% in Utah to 67% in Colorado in one study (Anderson and Bowden 1977). Fawn mortality is due to predation and starvation. Larger fawns are more likely to survive, and smaller fawns are more likely to starve. However, predators will likely take any size of fawn. Winter mortality of fawns may approach 75% annually. Mortality of adult deer is mostly from hunting and starvation (Carpenter 1976). Predators include coyotes, bobcats, golden eagles, mountain lions, black bears, brown bears, and domestic dogs. Locally, coyote and mountain lion predation on fawns can account for significant mortality within populations. Mule deer may survive up to 20 years in the wild, but such longevity is very rare, and in most populations 28 to 43% of the population is replaced each year. About half of this mortality is from fawns, 15% is from does, and 35% is from bucks. Conditions at River Edge Colorado Property The property supports low-density year-round levels of mule deer use. There is currently a small herd of approximately 5 to 10 deer, which may swell slightly during the winter months. The REC property does not support mule deer winter range(s), as per CDOW’s Natural Diversity Information System (NDIS) (see Figure 3, and see Appendix I for definitions). However NDIS mapping depicts rough area boundaries of habitat use patterns, and on-site verification is recommended by CDOW. Based on verification of habitats, the REC property itself would not meet the definition of Winter Range, but habitats on adjacent properties near the Roaring Fork River, which contain shrubby vegetation, would likely meet criteria as Winter Range. Deer tend to stay in the riparian cottonwood forests and shrublands near the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek confluence areas on the adjacent properties conservation easement areas but they commonly venture into pasture areas on REC property during the nighttime hours. During the summer months, the abundance of water in the area would continue to keep deer on the property. Deer do utilize the flat terraces despite the lack of quality vegetation. Deer scat (and definitely elk scat) were common in upland habitats, but there is definitely more deer use closer to the RFC easement area along the Roaring Fork River where escape cover, browse, and water resources are at hand. Deer likely move into the upland areas (where the development is proposed) during the nighttime hours. The recent opening (2009) of the Rio Grande Trail has introduced bicyclists, runners and many dog walkers to the property. The recent presence of dogs on the property during the daylight hours has likely deterred deer use of areas within 100 meters of the trail (Freddy et al. 1996, Lenth et al. 2008, and see Sawyer et al. 2006 for winter range issues). Because of the open line-of-sight views of dogs App. K-18 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 18 on the trail (and off the trail in the case of off leash dogs), mule deer use of the upland habitats on the property have likely decreased in the past year, at least during the daylight hours. Research has indicated that in level terrain with large line-of-sight distances, wintering deer will increase their residency distance from disturbances by at least 0.5 km (Sawyer et al. 2006). Deer (and wildlife in general) were found to be significantly less likely to utilize habitats within 100m of recreational trails (Lenth et al. 2008, George and Crooks 2006, Knight and Cole 1995, Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Miller et al. 200, Odell and Knight 2001). This is not to say that there is no deer use of existing upland areas on the REC property, or areas near the trail. Indeed there is good research on many parks and open space areas which indicate that while diurnal deer use will definitely decrease, nighttime activity by deer does still occur to some degree (George and Crooks 2006). Nevertheless, the current use of the Rio Grande Trail is likely having a negative impact on mule deer utilization of the property. Off leash dogs, while being a prohibited activity on the Rio Grande Trail, have commonly been observed on the property, and have been observed chasing elk on the property (pers. obs. 2009, R. Shepherd pers. comm. 2010). 4.2 GIS-based Impact Assessment Model A quantitatively determined area was modeled in GIS to approximate indirect1 impacts and loss of habitat effectiveness around the edges of the property for activities associated with the full build-out development of REC (see Figure 5). This is based on the premise that human activities, noise, fugitive light, and road noise would diminish the habitat effectiveness on the property. The impact area was delineated assuming that summertime vegetation screening (assuming full canopy on reclaimed deciduous vegetation) and topographical screening that would prevent deer, elk and nesting birds from seeing visual cues and hearing audible cues loud enough to elicit a behavioral response (e.g., fleeing, avoidance, to reductions in foraging or resting). We used the following buffer distances for the vegetation types found on and around the property: 1. Shorter native grasses and forbs, agricultural vegetation, interim reclamation: 400-foot buffer 2. Reclaimed and existing sagebrush shrublands: 300-feet 3. Oakbrush, mixed shrublands, riparian shrublands, etc.: 200-feet 4. Planted vegetation screening areas: 200-feet 5. Mixed riparian cottonwood and understory shrubs, riparian forests: 150-feet We mapped vegetation data for baseline mapping utilizing the 2009 high-resolution aerial photos. We then further delineated vegetation types on the property from site visits and aerial photography interpretation. We then utilized a GIS-based visual model using an observer eye-level of 4-feet (approximately the eye-height of a deer or elk), and modeled what an animal could see given topographical constraints coupled with vegetation within the development and on surrounding lands (e.g., Conservation Easement area). The furthest extent we chose for visual modeling was 400-feet, which is likely the maximum distance a deer or elk would be able to see given the long-term reclamation proposed in the project area, as well as the distance from which wildlife would elicit a behavioral response (i.e. flee, 1 Indirect Impacts: those effects of the proposed development which are reasonably certain, but would occur later in time or are spatially separated from the project. Examples of indirect impacts (effects) would include increased traffic, noise and activities from residents, fugitive lighting, etc. Direct Impacts: would include the impacts (and effects) associated with implementation of the proposed project. Direct impacts would include direct conversion or manipulation of habitats (including beneficial or detrimental changes) or direct impacts to a species, (including road and home building, occupancy of developed areas, reclamation of open space areas, use of soft path trails). App. K-19 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 19 change movement trajectories, cease eating, etc.) given their accustomization to human activities in the surrounding areas. For example, the presence of a ridgeline or other topographical feature may shorten the buffered distance, given that the animal could not see over a ridge, and areas with dense screening vegetation would also have shorter buffered areas, when compared to an area adjacent to a meadow with no tall vegetation or topographical features shielding the view of an animal. We also proceeded with the assumption that since there appears to be many migratory and residential wildlife species in the area even with the existing presence of the Rio Grande Trail, Highway 82, high summertime use of the Roaring Fork River and Conservation Easement area by boaters, angler and groups watching the herons, and nearby subdivisions, some wildlife species still were able to accept the conditions such that the remaining habitats in the area still provided enough security and foraging potential allowing them to continue to utilize the area. For example, if a migratory bird was so uncomfortable with the use recreational patterns on and adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and gravel pits, then it wouldn’t have stopped in its migration to set up a territory in the area, and would have found a quieter location. This modeled disturbance or indirect impact area shows that there would be indirect impacts from development across the majority of the property and on adjacent RFC managed areas (see Figure 5 below). Within this “indirect impact” area, we conservatively assumed that wildlife species would not linger for long periods of time, would have decreased foraging, and would generally avoid these areas during the daylight hours. The impact area also assumes that if wildlife species cannot see human activities and vehicle traffic, and human noises are muffled by vegetation and topography, wildlife would be more likely to utilize habitats closer to the development and trails compared to sites in more rural habitats. One additional assumption is that some wildlife species would be more sensitive to human activities (such as elk), and they would generally have a larger buffer distance, compared to a wildlife species more acclimated to human activities (such as magpie, or red fox). Therefore this existing impact area is “generalized” to cover most of the wildlife species one would expect to find in this area, based on existing habitat types and observed species. App. K-20 59705 980 5990 6 000 601 0 6020 5960 5950 603 0 6040 605 0 6060 594 0 6070 6080 6090 6110 6100 6120 61306140 59306150 616 0 617 0 6 1806190 6 200 621062206 2 6 0 6270623062406250628059 2 0 6200 6020 62106080 6140 602 0 6000 6 030 6020 60 40 6 190 6060 6040 6240 61 90 6020 59705950597059906000 60306000617 0 6020 601062 0 0 5 9 7 0 5950 5940 5960 6020 6110 6030 6150 603 0 612 0 605 0 6160 5970596 0 600061606 0406150 600 0 60306220 60106210 6 0 1 0 6100 594 0 59906020 6140 6030595060 4 0 6 150 6040 6010 5990 6 150 6030 6130 5990 60105990 6 0 1 0 6 150 5940 6180 599 0 616 0 6160 6190 6060 5950 6010 6020 597059906030 5950 6070 59806070 5990594059406 020 5990601061 7 0 59406000 6030 6090 5960 6150 6010 5960 6030 61406 130 6180107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 06 Indirect Habitat Impacts 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Indirect Habitat Impacts from Core Development Area Indirect Habitat Impacts from Open Space Trail Ssytem Indirect Habitat Impacts from Stormwater Pond in Conservation Easement 20ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-21 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 21 Direct Effects- The development would not occur in highly suitable habitat for deer and most of the development would be placed on areas devoid of topsoil with very sparse vegetation. Effective mule deer habitat would not be directly impacted. With the reclamation of 40.3 acres of currently poor- quality habitats, some more effective mule deer habitat will be created around the edges of the development. As deer are more likely to continue to utilize the property during the non-winter months than elk are, deer use is expected to continue. Any potential fencing would generally limit areas where deer will persist, but during the nighttime deer may venture into more developed areas. Because access to the RFC conservation easement areas will be limited, deer would continue to use these areas. Access is limited throughout the conservation easement area, and access to the heronry area is forbidden during the nesting and fledging season. As long as access continues to be managed and generally limited, deer use of the conservation easement areas along the Roaring Fork River should continue (habitats along upper Cattle Creek are in very marginal conditions at this time). The interim land use (temporary grass mixes and agricultural production areas [e.g., alfalfa, grass hay]) will allow for improved deer grazing, albeit mostly during the nighttime hours nearer residences due to elevated, precluding human activities during the daylight hours. Indirect Effects-Deer would be able to continue to utilize the dense, shrubby cottonwood forests and riparian areas as security cover, and retention of these areas and avoidance of these areas by roads, homesites, trails and other uses would allow for deer to use the area after development. Dogs must be leashed in conservation easement areas. But despite dogs being leashed in these areas and in the development, deer would still likely flee people walking dogs around the edges of the subdivision and on soft trails, and it is inevitable that some leashed dogs will escape their owners and chase wildlife (K. Wright & J. Broderick, CDOW pers. comm. 2007). During the daytime hours, deer will find security and shelter in the conservation easement area, and given the noise and activity associated with a neighborhood, it is unlikely that deer would linger for long periods of time near homes, roads, and (during nice weather) foot paths. The placement of trails through reclaimed open space areas along the western side of the property will keep deer from fully utilizing reclaimed habitats during the daylight hours. It is highly likely that deer would venture nearer, and even within the subdivisions during the nighttime hours when human activities are generally indoors. Barking dogs and loose dogs will likely frighten off deer to some degree, and some dog/deer conflicts are possible. Placement of a dog park within the subdivision away from higher-quality habitats along the riparian corridors and conservation easement areas will help enable continued deer use around edges of the property and in adjacent conservation easement areas. It is my professional opinion is that dog parks, if located away from higher quality habitats, can help deter dog use of quality habitat areas, and would provide dogs and their owner’s suitable and appropriate areas to recreate away from deer habitats. Summary – Development of the REC property is designed to leave a buffer strip between high quality habitat off the property and the development to allow for continued deer use off the REC property. Although existing habitats on the property are in generally poor condition, the development of REC would nevertheless reduce some habitat availability. However, this would have negligible impacts on deer populations given the low carrying capacity of habitats on the REC property. There will also be some level of indirect effects from increased human activity adjacent to higher quality habitats within the conservation easement areas. The indirect impacts from new levels of human activity, noise, dogs, etc. may reduce deer carrying capacities within the greater REC and conservation easement areas, but this will be largely dependent upon REC and residents following the recommended mitigation measures (see section 5 Recommended Wildlife Mitigations). Cumulative indirect impacts to mule deer on conservation easement areas will also be dependent upon App. K-22 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 22 Roaring Fork Conservancy’s decision whether or not to allow new trail use or interpretive use of the constructed pond in the conservation easement area. Deer use of habitats within open space areas on REC and on adjacent conservation easement areas will likely continue and even possibly expand with habitat restoration and strict access control, but generally only at night. Deer would generally find cover in the thickest patches of shrubs, and venture forth into more open areas during the evening and nighttime hours. The planned soft path trail alignments will place high levels of summertime human activities very close to deer refugia on REC property and to adjacent refugia on conservation easement areas, which would expand the area of indirect impacts. As deer will have more intense human activities around them, there will be increased stress levels. If deer venture into residential areas, damage to landscaping is almost guaranteed. Given the current land conditions of the project area, and available habitat on the property and plans to improve habitat, this project would likely have negative impacts to individual deer from time to time, but would not have significant impacts to mule deer populations and no substantive change in deer carrying capacity on or around the property would be expected. App. K-23 107°15'0"W107°15'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°17'0"W107°17'0"W39°26'0"N 39°26'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N39°29'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 07 Mule Deer Winter Range 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Other Property Mule Deer Winter Concentration Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Range R o a r i n g F or k RiverScale: 1" = 2,000' Feet 0 2,000 4,0001,000 River Edge Colorado 22ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-24 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 24 4.3 Elk Elk currently utilize the REC property as a winter loafing and winter concentration area. These elk often show up on the property in mid to late November, after migrating down from habitats east of the property on Red Mountain and Missouri Heights, and from habitats the west towards Sunlight Peak and Dry Park. Elk are currently utilizing various portions of the property throughout the winter, depending on snowfall and snowmelt events, and currently utilize other winter ranges adjacent to the property (such as Aspen Glen and Iron Bridge golf courses). Elk will often linger in the area into the early springtime to take advantage of the early green-up of forbs and grasses in March. Given the complexity of the elk issue, the following is a detailed analysis of elk ecology and utilization of habitats in the greater area, which presents the background information and biology needed to provide for a robust assessment of potential impacts. Elk Ecology In the southern Rocky Mountains, as elsewhere in North America, elk are often associated with edge (ecotone) habitats where forested and meadow/shrubland systems are intermingled. During much of the year, elk are typically found near edges where forests grow adjacent to parks, meadows, or alpine tundra (Skovlin 1982, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). During the summer months, elk may spend significant amounts of time feeding in open alpine environments above treeline. Use of alpine habitats is thought to be associated with the cooler temperatures, persistent snowbanks and free water, and breezy conditions which keep bothersome flying insects to a minimum (Adams 1982, Lyon and Ward 1982). Similarly, during the winter elk may concentrate in sagebrush expanses, pinyon and juniper woodlands, irrigated meadows and other open habitats which are significant distances from forested cover (Lyon and Ward 1982). While habitats used by elk vary considerably over the course of a year, elk tend to inhabit higher elevations during the summer months, and migrate to lower elevations and/or south facing slopes during the winter months. On winter ranges, elk form mixed herds of bulls, cows and calves (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), but in the more developed areas in Colorado bulls may avoid traditional winter ranges which are near roads, homes and other human developments (B. Andree, CDOW pers. comm. 2006, Dodd et al. 2007). Generally, elk feed at twilight and at night, but they readily forage and disperse through the daylight hours (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Elk are generalist feeders, but usually prefer to graze on grasses, grass-like plants and forbs during the non-winter months (Nelson and Leege 1982, Fitzgerald et al. 1984). The specific diet for elk in a particular locality is largely determined by the season and palatability of available forage plants (Nelson and Leege 1982). In Colorado, elk show a clear preference for grasses and grass-like plants (Hoover and Wills 1984). Browse species can also vary by site and palatability of available plants. Shrubs, deciduous trees, and sometimes conifers compose much of the winter diet when snow depth limits access to grasses, sedges and forbs (Nelson and Leege 1982). Elk can locally utilize aspen shoots as well, and can have locally significant impact on aspen development. On Colorado winter ranges, Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii), aspen (Populus tremuloides), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), and snowberry (Symphorocarpos spp.) are the major browse species used by elk (Hoover and Wills 1984). Locally heavy elk feeding on aspen bark during the winter and spring can be very significant, and can leave long-lasting impacts on aspens stands. In Colorado, the breeding season for elk begins in early September, peaks during the last week of September and the first week of October, and is over by late October (Boyd and Ryland 1971, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mature bulls compete for females and father harems of adult cows and calves. Most of the breeding is done by bulls three years of age or older (Freddy et al. 1986). Other bulls App. K-25 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 25 continually attempt to usurp cows in the harem, and as a result of this constant activity of protecting the harem, herd bulls loose considerable weight during this time of the year. Harem size typically ranges between 15 and 20 cows (Boyd 1978, Thomas and Towell 1982). There is no breeding activity by elk on the REC property. Elk have a 240-255 day gestation period and most calves are born in late May or early June, with the peak of calving from June 4-6 (Freddy 1987). Yearling cows can breed in Colorado, but less than 1/3 of them are successful at producing offspring that survive into the fall, compared to about ¾ of adult cows (Freddy 1987). Calving grounds are carefully selected by the cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977). Calving sites occur in the middle to upper portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring there are some key characteristics required for optimum reproductive success. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high-quality summer range. They can occur in any forest type on gentle slopes, given that cover, food and water are nearby. The aspen habitat association is often regarded as the most productive type for elk reproduction in Colorado, however, in areas with a paucity of widespread aspen stands; use of Krummholz stand types can be significantly utilized. Cows with calves isolate themselves from the herd for two to three weeks or until the calves are large enough to travel. Cows and calves then begin to gather into larger nursery groups. By mid-July, herds of several hundred animals are common on some summer ranges. There is no calving activity on the River Edge Colorado property, nor in the conservation easement areas. Most elk mortality is due to predation on calves, hunting and winter starvation (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Localized mortality from vehicle strikes may also produce noticeable impacts on herds (Gagnon et al. 2007). A concern for both State (CDOW) and Federal (US Forest Service) biologists is the lack of elk security habitat in summer ranges, primarily where high road densities have led to changes in elk distribution and/or herd composition (Andree pers. comm. 2006-2007, Giezentanner 2004). Elk commonly retreat to secure areas, defined as areas of cover away from roads, during periods of stress (Hillis et al, 1991). Stress on elk often begins prior to summer archery hunting seasons and continues through fall hunting seasons, though general dispersed recreation may also cause stress (DeVergie 1989, Morrison 1992, Phillips 1998, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, D. Freddy, as cited in Giezentanner 2004). This can cause a shift in elk use away from National Forests and other public lands, where high road densities may occur, to private lands where access is controlled. Elk studies have consistently demonstrated that they avoid roads (Lyon 1979, 1983, Thomas et al. 1979, Christensen et al. 1993, Rowland et al. 2000, and Lyon and Jensen 1980). The amount of vehicular travel on roads appears to be the key factor that causes avoidance. A study by Lyon (1983) demonstrated that elk habitat effectiveness decreases by approximately 25% with a density of one mile of road per square mile of land, and by at least 50% with a density of 2 miles of road per square mile. The same research concluded that the best method of maximizing elk habitat effectiveness is by closing and obliterating roads. Recent research by Gagnon (et al. 2007) has indicated that consistent road traffic in repeatable patterns throughout the day allows some herds to become accustomed to higher levels of traffic. They further conclude that low-level use of roads, as is common on smaller dirt roads and rural roads, is too erratic and unpredictable to allow for elk habituation and accustomization. App. K-26 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 26 Along the I-70 corridor from Gypsum east to Eagle-Vail and from New Castle west to Parachute and DeBeque, and along the Roaring Fork Valley, development of winter range occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000s at a very high rate. Near the Towns of Silt, Rifle and Parachute, development comes in the form of natural gas exploration and extraction, which includes new roads, pipelines, well pads and other infrastructure (laydown yards, compressor stations, etc.). The oil and gas boom also had a temporary increase in the demand for housing in these areas. In the Vail and Roaring Fork Valleys, development in winter range occurs mostly as residential development. Some development of commercial space and golf courses also occurs in these areas. The increase of residential traffic around subdivisions and county roads further fragments and reduces the viability of remaining winter ranges. Human activities around homes and pet dogs can indirectly reduce remaining habitat effectiveness around homesites and within subdivisions. The result of this development is that elk are finding winter range a significant limitation to long-term herd health, and elk are being forced onto smaller areas of winter range, where overgrazing or damage to agricultural fields can occur. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) manages elk populations capable of supporting both significant harvests and opportunities for nonconsumptive uses (Freddy 1993). Elk license sales account for a large percentage of all license revenue, indicating the importance of elk herd management and population viability in the state. Indeed, unique to CDOW is the fact that their budget does not come from any type of State tax revenues, but is supported primarily through license fees. The shift of elk use from public to private lands during and following hunting seasons constrains efforts to achieve desired hunter harvest. Constraints on harvests limit CDOW’s abilities to meet harvest objectives. Although Colorado elk populations were at all time high levels in the early 2000s, the issue of diminishing winter ranges as a result of increasing land development (Freddy et al. 1993) spurred CDOW to begin reduction of herd sizes to be compatible with the amount of remaining winter range. This was done in order to maintain healthy animals with good calf:cow ratios and to minimize overgrazing of winter ranges and overpopulation stress to elk. Even non-consumptive recreational activities may be detrimental to elk, causing animals to alter behavior patterns, expend energy to avoid humans, and possibly to abandon preferred habitats (Knight and Cole 1995, Morrison 1992, Phillips and Alldredge 2000). Good calf:cow ratios are considered to be around 1:2, ratios less than this can be indicative of stressed populations. While there is no calving on River Edge Colorado property, elk may linger late into the spring months when cows are nearing the latter stages of their gestation period. Population Trend and Abundance for Elk Elk were nearly exterminated in Colorado in the late 1800’s due to market hunting pressures and subsidence hunting from Colorado’s mining communities (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Overexploitation reduced the native population in the State to as few as 500 individuals. The re-establishment of elk, where current herd numbers are believed to be larger in Colorado than any other state, is one of the noteworthy wildlife conservation achievements. Regarding elk abundance, the Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source website (Species Occurrence and Abundance- 2008), identifies Rocky Mountain elk abundance as “abundant” in areas around River Edge Colorado. A classification of “abundant” for mammals denotes “observed daily; >100/day in appropriate season and habitat, OR the dominant species (in terms of number) collected by standard techniques in appropriate season and habitat.” App. K-27 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 27 While elk are habitat generalists, their populations do respond to climate-induced factors (e.g., forage availability and quality). Hunter harvest also has a strong influence on populations. Where elk populations remain high or exceed objectives, this can often be attributed to a failure in providing secure habitat on public lands where hunter harvest can be used to maintain populations within objectives. Hunter harvest on private lands is typically more limited, as either access fees or landowner preferences restrict the number of hunters and the gender of elk harvested. Region-wide, most elk populations are at or above herd management objectives, which are established within an estimated carrying capacity and balanced with hunter demand and other resource objectives. Though data in this objective -setting process is typically limited and many assumptions are made, CDOW is in a constant process of checking and improving their modeling efforts. Tracking the calf:cow ratio provides information about the overall health of the elk population. Overall body condition for cow elk relates directly to the reproductive potential of the population (D. Freddy, as cited in Giezentanner 2004). As stress increases, overall health and resulting body condition decreases for cows resulting in a lowering of calf production and/or survival. As security habitat conditions increase, cow body condition will also increase resulting in increased calf survival and a higher calf:cow ratio for the population. Conversely, when habitat security conditions decrease, cow body condition decreases with a resultant reduction in calf production and survival. The CDOW estimates elk herd numbers annually by monitoring hunter kill success and by conducting winter aerial counts. From the monitoring conducted by CDOW, and the herd size estimates subsequently derived, it is clear that elk populations are at high numbers locally and throughout Colorado. Data Analysis Units (DAUs) are used to manage herds of big game animals, are generally geographically discrete, and, for the most part, contain discrete big game populations. DAUs are designed to support and accomplish the objective of the CDOW’s Long Range Plan and meet the public’s objectives for big game. River Edge Colorado lies technically within DAU E16, but the Roaring Fork River forms the boundary with DAU E15 and animals have been observed crossing the River in either direction (Figure 7). Therefore, the following section details both DAU E16 and E15 elk population trends given the cross-DAU herd movement. This background information provides baseline conditions for an impact analysis of the River Edge Colorado project. The following DAU information was generously provided by CDOW Wildlife Biologist Julie Mao. App. K-28 107°14'0"W107°14'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°18'0"W107°18'0"W39°24'0"N39°26'0"N 39°26'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°30'0"N 39°30'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 08 Elk Data Analysis Unit 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Municipal Boundary Elk Data Analysis Unit Scale: 1" = 4,000' Feet 0 4,000 8,0002,000 Glenwood Springs Carbondale Elk DAU E-16 Elk DAU E-15 28ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-29 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 29 DAU E15 DAU E15 is a small DAU of 850 square miles, with 626 square miles (74%) on the White River National Forest alone. Approximately 39% of this DAU is in designated Wilderness. No communities are found within the interior of the DAU, but it is bordered on its east by the towns of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, and Aspen and the Roaring Fork River. Only 20% of the winter range for this herd is found on NFS lands, another 28% is on BLM and the majority (52%) is on private land. The total population of elk within this DAU has increased from a low of about 800 animals in the early 1950s to a high of over 8,000 in 1998 and 1999 (Giezentanner 2008). The current estimate of 4,246 is above the herd objective set by DOW in the 1988 DAU plan of 3,300. It has decreased from its 10-year high of 8,205 in 1998. CDOW has used more liberal antlerless seasons in managing this herd to reduce the population towards the population objective in the DAU plan. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008PopulationElk Population for DAU E-15 4.3.2 Graph 1: DAU E15 Total Elk Population Estimates App. K-30 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 30 The calf to cow ratio in this DAU follows a similar trend as several of the other DAUs the central Colorado Mountains. It was above 50 calves for each 100 cows until 1992 when it began to decline. The 10 year average is currently around 42 calves per 100 cows which often is indicative of a stressed population, but the last 5 years average is 36 calves per 100 cows, which can be concerning. The long- term drought, increasing recreation use of public lands and the rapid development of private lands all are possible factors in the decline. The private lands within this DAU are extremely valuable and continue to be developed into private home sites at an amazing rate. This development is often in winter range. 4.3.3 Graph 2: Calf to Cow Ratio for DAU E15 from 1999 to 2008 Summary- The population has declined from 7,858 in 1998 to an estimate of 4,246 in 2008. This is a decline of 39%. CDOW has been actively managing this herd to reduce the population to the population objective of 3,300 animals. The current population is much closer to the management parameters established by the CDOW. Although the population decline may appear to be a concern, it is not as it is still above management parameters established by CDOW, and a lower population level will be better for the elk and elk habitat. However, the calf:cow ratio is low, has declined over the past 5 years, and is a concern to CDOW biologists. This decline may have started during droughts in the early 200s, but has persisted likely due to increasing heavy recreation use of public lands in the DAU where calving activities occur. As shown in Colorado studies, both motorized and non-motorized recreational activities on calving range can have deleterious impacts to calf success, and increased use of existing trails, and continued construction of new trails is only further introducing new impacts to elk habitats. It is possible that at least some of this decline is a result of stress response of the population being over the DAU population objective for the herd. This stress comes from too many elk on not enough habitat. There have been no significant increases in the number of open roads on public lands over this time period, but new trails through elk winter ranges and transitional ranges has occurred along the Crystal River, and Roaring Fork Rivers in the past few years (including the Rio Grande and Crystal River Trails), and all open roads and trails continue to experience increasing use by recreationists during the summer and fall. Winter recreation in the form of snowmobile use is dramatically increasing, but by the time snowmobile use begins in the high-country, elk have moved to lower elevations. The Rio Grande Trail in particular bisects the River Edge Colorado property, and keeping this trial open during the winter 20 30 40 50 60 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Calf:Cow Ratio App. K-31 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 31 months places trail users and their dogs into the middle of important elk loafing and winter ranges in the greater project area. The continued development of winter ranges on private lands into private home sites is likely causing increased stress on the population and may contribute to reduced calf production and survival. Elk herds in the lower Roaring Fork valley are often wintering on golf courses, and herds have to move through subdivisions and recreational features such as the Rio Grande Trail where harassment and stress is common. Some animals may have to cross Highway 82, which increases stress and mortality. All of these factors likely play a part in the downward trend in reproductive fitness of this herd. Data Analysis Unit E16 DAU E16 covers approximately 1,377 square miles of which 1,043 (76%) is on the White River National Forest. It forms a rough triangle from Glenwood Springs to Aspen and to Vail, which all lay on the boundary of the DAU. No major towns are found within the interior of the DAU, but several small communities, such as Thomasville and Meredith do exist within its boundaries. The private lands on the north and west portions of the DAU were heavily developed as private home sites and commercial properties in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Hunter-Frying Pan and the Holy Cross designated Wildernesses are found inside this DAU. Approximately 40% of the winter range for this herd is on private lands, with 60% on public lands (primarily White River National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands). The total population of this herd has mirrored many of the other herds in Colorado. It increased from a low of approximately 1,750 animals in the early 1950s to a high of nearly 9,500 animals in 1999. The CDOW has been actively managing this herd through liberal hunting seasons targeting the antlerless segment of the population. The goal has been to decrease the herd to within the population objective of 6,000 post-hunting season animals (Broderick, pers. comm. 2007). The current population estimate was 7,200 in 2009 (Graph 3). 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Elk Population 4.3.4 Graph 3: DAU E16 total elk population, 1998-2007 App. K-32 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 32 Over the past 10 years, the calf to cow ratio for this population has mirrored most of the other populations in the central Colorado Mountains. It remained fairly stable until 2001 when it began a downward trend (Graph 4). It has remained in the low calf ratio of 41 calves per 100 cows since 2003. This low level of calf recruitment is normally indicative of a stressed population. The heavy hunting pressure of the past few years has resulted in a reduced overall population and it would be expected that there would be a corresponding increase in calf production from this reduced population. The relatively low number of calves surviving to post-hunting season coupled with the downward trend may indicate a problem in the reproductive capabilities or winter range conditions available to this herd. The western portion of the state of Colorado suffered through a prolonged drought in the early 2000s, and this drought reduced forage production and nutrition and may have been one factor in the reduced calf production and survival earlier this decade. 20 30 40 50 60 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Calf:Cow Ratio 4.3.5 Graph 4: Calf:Cow Ratio for DAU E16, 1998-2007 Summary- The population has declined from approximately 9,500 in 1998 to an estimate of 6,259 in 2006. This is a decline of 34%. The CDOW has been actively managing this herd to reduce the population to within the population objective of 6,000 animals. The population objective has not been reached this point, but management has significantly reduced the herd as a result of impacts to winter range. There are no current concerns about the overall population number or overall trend for this herd (Giezentanner 2004, 2008). However, loss of winter range carrying capacity is a significant concern (Andree, pers. comm. 2006 & 2007, P. Will, pers. comm. 2008). The persistently low calf:cow ratio continues to be a concern for CDOW Biologists. A large portion of the summer range in the DAU is public land, much of it in designated Wilderness, and relatively protected from intense disturbances, however it is subject to heavy and increasing recreation uses. The overall mileage of open system roads and trails on the WRNF has not increased significantly over the past 10 years, but the use of the existing system has definitely increased. The private land portions of the winter range throughout the DAU was significantly developed into private home sites and other developments in the 1990s and early 2000s (B. Andree pers. comm. 2005-2007, K. Wood CDOW pers. comm. 2007, J. Groves pers. comm. 2007, and see Petterson 2006a & b, 2007b & c). The eastern portions of this DAU have a large component of lodgepole pine and have seen large areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle outbreak. The pine beetle outbreak and subsequent death of mature lodgepole pine would actually improve foraging conditions for elk. The cumulative impacts of the drought and the App. K-33 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 33 residential developments and recreational activities may be resulting in reduced reproduction capability and lower over-winter survivorship of calves. 4.3.6 Future Elk Populations During the next 20 years, the following factors are the likely regulators of elk herd numbers in central Colorado: large scale alterations of forest habitats by bark beetles, loss of transitional and winter range habitats (through residential/recreational and oil & gas development), sport hunting, chronic wasting disease, and possible wolf (Canis lupus) predation. These are factors which are deemed likely based on professional judgment, but are admittedly speculatory. These factors could act independently, or mutually, in determining elk herd demographics, numbers, and fitness in the near future. The first of these factors, large scale habitat alteration, is both imminent and ongoing in much of the lodgepole pine stands in DAU E16, and the high country. With regard to elk summer range, changes that are likely to occur in lodgepole pine systems are fairly well understood and straight forward in relation to the likely post- MPB forest stand conditions and subsequent elk habitat conditions. With MPB mortality, understory grass and forb production will increase, and forest patchiness will also increase. Stand treatment actions aimed at preventing or reducing MPB impacts could also influence forage and cover, or even exacerbate the natural progression of MPB infestations. Yet elk are adaptive animals and they can coexist successfully with considerable environmental change (Lyon and Ward 1982), as long as essential habitat needs are provided. Both the quantity and quality of forage are likely to increase in the lodgepole pine forests of DAU E16 in the aftermath of a MPB epidemic. Increased forage production is due to the inverse relationship between the density of overstory canopy cover and understory grass and forb production (Yeager and Riordan 1953, McConnell and Smith 1971). By reducing the density of overhead vegetation, grasses and forbs desired by elk become more readily available. As part of the natural progression of stand mortality caused by bark beetle infestation, overstory canopy closure would decline (substantially in many places). Snag decadence and coarse woody debris would slowly increase while decay of needles, twigs and boles would cease the production of allelopathic chemicals, which currently retard grass and forb growth. In some areas, blowdown of dead lodgepole trees will create barriers to elk movement, and in most cases impose difficulties to elk movement, but this blowdown would likely also increase the difficulties hunters/recreationists have in accessing elk, and this could likely increase elk security habitat. The increase in foraging opportunities in lodgepole pine forests in DAU E16 may keep elk lingering longer in these areas during the spring, summer and fall months. In contrast to the increase in summer range foraging opportunities, and increased security habitat due to MPB generation of coarse woody debris, the loss of winter range habitats in DAUs E15 & E16 and across the lower elevations on private lands and lower elevations on Forest lands (mainly through residential development and oil & gas extraction on private and public lands) will have direct and indirect negative impacts to elk populations. In west-central Colorado, winter range is the limiting habitat for elk. This is due to the large elk herd sizes and the diminishing lower elevation ranges available for wintering elk. This change is due to the conversion of open sagebrush parks, agricultural meadows and lower elevation shrublands to housing developments, golf courses, and other more urban landscapes. Additionally, oil & gas development on the western end of the DAU E15 (and more so in DAU E14) and lower elevation BLM and private lands also produced a loss of winter range through both habitat fragmentation, and direct habitat loss (from roads and drill pads). Both the development of residential and recreational facilities and development of oil and gas resources also has indirect impacts to habitat through increases in traffic and road networks. Increased road densities are directly linked to decreased calf:cow ratios, bull ratios, and hunter success (Freddy as cited in Giezentanner 2004). Within DAU E15 & E16, there was significant development of winter range App. K-34 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 34 habitats in the Eagle Valley that occurred near the towns of Vail, Eagle-Vail, Avon, Edwards, Wolcott, Eagle, and Gypsum in the past 10+ years. In the future, likely impacts to winter ranges around Minturn are also anticipated from the Battle Mountain Resort project (Petterson 2007b, B. Andree CDOW pers. comm. 2007, Thompson et al. 2010 (in progress)). In the Roaring Fork Valley, loss of winter range has occurred near Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Aspen, Snowmass Village and Basalt from various developments on private land, and may be expected to increase in the near future (Petterson 2006a, b, 2007c, Wood pers. comm. 2006 & 2007). Because of this net loss in winter range, habitat degradation from overgrazing by elk on remaining winter range habitats has increased, and potential concerns regarding overgrazing and over stocking of elk on remaining winter ranges continue (B. Andree, K. Wood, J. Groves and J. Broderick, CDOW, pers. comm. 2005-2009). The recent construction and use of trails through winter ranges is introducing hikers, dog walkers and bicycling activities through very important elk winter ranges, and despite the perceived “low-impact” activities associated with recreational trail use (as no motor is used), elk still show a very strong negative response to these non-motorized recreational activities. Indeed, the newly opened Rio Grande Trail could be producing some of the largest singular impacts to elk’s ability to utilize winter ranges in the Roaring Fork Valley. Further, due to increased traffic on local roads, elk mortality from vehicles strikes is increasing, and is prompting discussion for more mitigation measures (Andree pers. comm. 2005-2006, Clevenger et al 2001, Farrell et al. 2002, Dodd et al. 2006, Dodd et al. 2007). In the foreseeable future, elk populations within DAU E15 & E16 will likely decrease, primarily from more winter ranges becoming unavailable to elk and concerns over the decreasing calf:cow ratios, and subsequent management-induced reductions in herd sizes. Within the foreseeable future, summertime motorized and non-motorized activities will likely increase, putting additional stressors on calving elk. 4.3.7 Highway Fencing and Cattle Creek Culvert In 2009 and 2010 CDOT and CDOW installed an elk fence along both the west and east sides of SH- 82 in order to reduce vehicle-elk collisions. While some elk will still cross SH-82, the fencing has significantly reduced the connectivity though this area and has reduced the “back-and-forth” movements across the highway. One option for elk migration is to use the culvert conveying Cattle Creek underneath Highway 82. This culvert is very large- approximately 12 feet high, and 16 feet wide, and has a gravel substrate. Waters flowing through the culvert (surprisingly) do not freeze-over during the winter months; therefore a suitable substrate exists through the culvert allowing for animal passage. This culvert is large enough to allow for elk passage. However, due to the length of the culvert (over 120 feet long), elk may be very hesitant to pass through the culvert. Research shows that fencing is definitely necessary to “force” elk to utilize underpasses and large culverts. In 2009 when the elk fence along SH 82 was installed, the fence was tied into the culvert to “force” elk to utilize the culvert. While conditions on the east side of the highway at the culvert mouth are not suitable for elk residency, this passageway across SH- App. K-35 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 35 82 is the best option for elk movement at this time. 4.3.8 River Edge Colorado Impact Discussion In the greater Roaring Fork Valley the lack of available winter range, or more accurately, the conversion of winter range into residential development and golf courses and preclusions of otherwise available habitats by use of recreational trails has increased stress levels on wintering elk that is realized through low calf:cow ratios and lower post-winter weights of elk. Because of the decreasing winter range and availability of remaining winter range, the remaining habitats are supporting more elk than they can sustainably handle. With new development and trails, more elk are being forced to utilize smaller winter ranges or on sub-optimal areas (such as golf-courses). The impacts to elk winter range occurred in the Roaring Fork Valley as they did across many areas in the state. Development of individual lots in Missouri Heights and larger developments at Aspen Glen, Iron Bridge, Horse Springs, and River Valley Ranch has forced more elk onto the remaining winter ranges. The proposed developments at Pinyon Mesa (immediately east of REC), Spring Valley Ranch in Missouri Heights (550 units & 2 golf courses), Hunt Ranch in Missouri Heights (95 units), and potential development of the Bershenyi Ranch will continue to reduce available winter range. The River Edge property only supports marginal foraging opportunities due to the scraping off of topsoil by the Sanders Ranch development. However, over the past 5 years, early seral and weedy species have slowly become established on the site, providing a bit more grazing opportunities every year. During the past few winters, when the property provided only very marginal grazing opportunities, many of the elk likely moved to other winter ranges in the area for feeding (including the conservation easement area, West Bank, Horse Springs, Aspen Glen, and Iron Bridge areas). But surprisingly high numbers of elk persisted on the property through the winter, likely utilizing the property as a loafing area during the daytime hours, or when snows covered foraging opportunities on other properties. Because of the lack of human activities on the REC property, elk may have simply used the REC property for loafing in between foraging bouts on other neighboring properties where the foraging was better, but human disturbances and stressors were higher. Elk can show high site fidelity, which means they are very attached to a site regardless of changes in habitat conditions. Elk will, however, change winter ranges and leave an area if human activities and associated disturbances (including traffic and domestic dog activities) are high enough. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail for winter use during 2009 introduced daily walkers, dog walkers, and sometimes bicyclists and cross country skiers through the middle of this property while elk were still using the area for loafing and winter range. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail combined with the construction of the elk fence along SH-82 has noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property during the winter of 2009-2010. While many elk were displaced, elk use of the property still occurs, but is much more abbreviated and temperamental. 4.3.8.1 Impacts of the River Edge Colorado Project With the development of REC property, any wintering elk will likely avoid the phase being actively developed on the property during construction. As elk are not on the property from April through November, activities during this time would have no impact on elk. The large amounts of construction activity, heavy equipment, and human activity will likely preclude all but incidental elk use. Elk will likely still show up at the property in November as they have done for years, but winter time construction activities would quickly force elk to use other adjacent winter range areas. These areas will likely end up being Aspen Glen, Horse Springs, Iron Bridge, other private lands and lands managed by the BLM. This is not to say that some elk would still likely linger on the site, and even be App. K-36 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 36 seen close to construction activities, but it’s reasonable to assume that elk would avoid heavy construction activities. Also of consideration is the new Rio Grande Trail and elk fence along the highway. With the opening of the trail and fence, elk use of the property was down in the 2009-2010 winter season due to poor habitat connectivity and elk avoiding areas near the year-round Rio Grande Trail. How much elk use there is of the Cattle Creek culvert has been a topic of discussion. Various reports discuss elk use of underpasses (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, 2005; Dodd et. al. 2005, 2006, 2007; and see Cramer 2007 for literature review), and reports do support the need of fencing to “force” elk to use a culvert or underpass. While the Cattle Creek culvert is not ideal for facilitating elk movement, it is likely that the fencing to the culvert and limiting elk options to cross over Highway 82 is the most reasonable alternative for the situation. If human activity on the property and on adjacent properties in conservation easements (i.e., undeveloped open space areas2) is restricted during the winter months, then elk may continue to utilize these available habitats. Habitat conditions within the areas along lower Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River are not the same as within the REC property, but if elk feel safe in these open space areas, and have learned that human disturbances do not occur in these areas, then elk may end up continuing to use the habitats. However, it is also possible that elk may end up altogether not using open space areas for loafing, and may indeed continue through REC to other traditional winter range areas, including area golf courses. If human activities, even if incidental or infrequent, occur during the winter months in the RFC and REC open space areas, then elk would likely abandon using these areas and therefore most of the REC property would not be used by elk. This would be especially pertinent around the soft-surface trails on the western side of the development- keeping these trails closed from December 1 through March 31 (or until the elk leave the area in the spring) will definitely help with maintaining potential utilization of otherwise available habitats. The Rio Grande Trail will effectively keep elk from using the eastern side of the property, aside from some incidental nighttime use of reclaimed areas and adjacent properties. Because the 160 acres or so of loafing and (marginal) winter ranges on the River Edge Colorado property will no longer be available for elk use, more elk will end up having to either utilize uplands outside of the valley floor, or will have to increase their densities on remaining winter ranges. Elk being forced to utilize smaller patches of available winter ranges will increase nutritional stress for the elk (through intraspecific competition for forage), and other behavioral and nutritional stressors which would lead to decreased calf:cow ratios, and lower weights of elk coming off of winter ranges. While the REC project in and of itself may have minor impacts to elks overall available nutritional input during the winter (because current foraging conditions on the property are so poor), cumulatively, with other area projects, elk winter ranges will continue to decrease in the lower Roaring Fork Valley, and if calf:cow ratios do not improve after decreasing overall elk populations for DAU E15 & E16, CDOW may decide to further reduce elk populations within these DAUs to ensure a healthy elk population (CDOW Long Range Plan, K. Giezentanner USFS pers. comm. 2008, J. Groves CDOW pers. comm. 2008). Summary- The REC property is only used during the winter months by elk, and provides relatively poor nutritional foraging opportunities at this time. Over the past year, the installation of the game fence along SH-82 by CDOT, and the opening of the Rio Grande Trail further reduced the accessibility and utilization of the REC property by elk. Currently, elk loafing on the property during 2 for the purposes of discussion, defined herein as areas including both RFC easement areas and areas left as open space by REC, and dominated by reclaimed and existing native vegetation) App. K-37 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 37 the winter months is fairly low, but nevertheless this property does play an important role in overall elk winter ranges in the Roaring Fork Valley. Development of the property will preclude most elk use, albeit of a marginal-condition habitat. Elk would still likely use some habitats on the REC property and on the RFC conservation easement areas, but the proximity of homes, human activities and dogs would likely further reduce the utilization of otherwise available habitats. While this project in and of itself only impacts a fairly small area of winter range, cumulatively this project adds to other stressors and impacts to winter ranges for elk herds in the area. How elk will finally end up using or avoiding the REC property and adjacent properties is admittedly speculatory. The literature indicates that elk do tend to avoid areas of human habitation, but in some cases elk will continue to utilize subdivisions and areas of high human habitation (e.g., the towns of Estes Park, Evergreen, and subdivisions such as Eagle Ranch south of Eagle, Iron Bridge, West Bank and Aspen Glen). Conservatively, one must assume that the REC project will further reduce elk winter range and foraging opportunities in the area, but the exact future utilization and use patterns of the property will remain to be seen, and will depend on overall human activities and ultimately the elk’s balancing of utilization of available foraging opportunities and tolerance of using residential areas as winter range. Elk use of subdivisions as de facto winter range is, ultimately, not in the best interests of elk or the residents, but in some cases it ends up being the elk’s best option. App. K-38 107°15'0"W107°15'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°17'0"W107°17'0"W39°26'0"N 39°26'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N39°29'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 09 Elk Winter Range 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Other Property Elk Higway Crossing Elk Winter Concentration Elk Severe Winter Range Elk Deer Winter Range R o a r i n g F or k RiverScale: 1" = 2,000' Feet 0 2,000 4,0001,000 River Edge Colorado 38ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-39 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 39 4.4 Riparian Habitats The property is adjacent to two main riparian areas: 1. Cattle Creek, and 2. Roaring Fork River. Cattle Creek was heavily impacted in the past by grazing practices. Based on historical aerial photographs, the ranch had cow pens which overlapped Cattle Creek; therefore significant trampling and disturbance to the riparian habitats occurred on much of Cattle Creek. Currently, the eastern section of Cattle Creek on the REC property is dominated by non-native species, including common tansy and canary reed-grass. The habitat along this eastern section has limited structural diversity, is relatively narrow, and is dominated by only a few weedy species. Therefore the current habitat condition of this eastern section is poor with little habitat diversity. Most species observed in this area were upland bird species (however no small mammal trapping has taken place), and common riparian bird species were lacking due to the paucity of structural diversity of habitats. Some deer, elk, and nighttime use of the area by other species is likely as they travel to and from higher quality habitats. Lower Cattle Creek (near the confluence with the Roaring Fork) is of a better habitat quality and condition. The lower Cattle Creek area has various shrub and tree plant species, stream meanders, and more native vegetation. Nevertheless, the understory vegetation in this area is also dominated by non- native graminoid species, which somewhat diminishes the habitat conditions. More wildlife species utilize this area due to widespread wetland habitats, and the structural diversity provided by taller shrubs (e.g., silver buffaloberry [Shepherdia argenteus]). The REC project does not have accepted plans for habitat work in Cattle Creek, due to stipulations in the Roaring Fork Conservancy’s Conservation Easement, but a pond is planned with the coordination and oversight of RFC on a disturbed bench overlooking the confluence area. The Roaring Fork River, which forms the western property boundary, supports diverse riparian woodlands and shrublands. Most of the trees along the river are somewhat decadent, and there is a general lack of younger trees along the river (likely due to modified instream flows). A couple of the larger ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) trees along the river are currently providing nesting for a small to moderately sized great blue heron rookery. One of the three rookery trees fell down into the Roaring Fork in the spring of 2009 due to high springtime flows and bank scour on the western bank. The riparian habitats along the river provide habitat for a number of bird species, as well as habitat for many mammal species. 4.5 Great Blue Heron Great blue herons breed across the entire North American continent. They are the largest heron species in North America, and are considered to be common and widespread. They are highly adaptable to different habitats and environments. Great blue heron populations are generally stable or increasing throughout most of their range and are ranked globally secure, but rare to uncommon in Colorado (G5/S3B) (NatureServe 2010). The World Conservation Union (IUCN) red list category for the great blue heron is “Least Concern”, and the Audubon Watchlist Status is “Green” (Audubon App. K-40 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 40 Society 2007). As with all migratory birds, the great blue heron is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended). Great blue herons generally nest in colonial “heronries”. Habitat characteristics of heronries vary considerably depending on locations within North America. Likewise, the level of human activity around established heronries also vary widely; however, high levels of human activity have been associated with heronry abandonment (Bjorkland 1975, Wershkul et al. 1976). The level of response from a disturbance is influenced by a variety of factors, including breeding stage and distance (Vos et al. 1985). Human disturbance can be a major factor influencing nesting and foraging activities of great blue heron. Some herons do become habituated to human activities (Grubb 1979, Kelsall & Simpson 1980, Butler 1991, and Vennesland 2000). Human recreational activities can cause herons to temporarily abandon their breeding attempts, allow predation of eggs (Moul 1990), or permanently abandon a colony (Markham & Brechtel 1979). Most heronries are located in areas away from human activity, or have significant vegetative screening from human activities (Watts & Bradshaw 1994, Gibbs & Kinkel 1997, J. Lowsky pers. comm. 2008). Klein (1993), and Lowsky (2007 & pers. comm. 2008) both reported that great blue herons had highly variable responses to humans in vehicles and afoot. However, in most situations herons responded stronger to humans on foot than on bicycles or in vehicles. This is a common theme with many wildlife species, including elk. As cited by Lowsky (in his 2007 report to RFTA for impacts to a heronry from the Rio Grande Trail near Basalt), Rodges and Smith (1995) reported that great blue herons flushed at a mean distance of 32.0 + 12.3m in response to persons approaching on foot. Similarly, Skagen et al. (2001) found a reduction in the number of great blue heron nests when they were exposed to humans on foot. Vos et al. (1985) studied a heronry in Larimer County, Colorado, and found that heron’s response to human activity changed as the breeding season progressed through the year. Herons were most responsive to human intrusions early in the breeding season (March), flushing from the nest at the slightest disturbance and not returning until the cause was no longer present. During egg laying and incubation (mid-April), herons were less willing to abandon nests and returned more readily. This “nest site fidelity” is a common theme among many bird species- whereby as the breeding season progresses, adult birds are less likely to stay away from eggs or nestlings, and is thought to be a function of “resource investment” into their young (Thompson 2007). Vennesland (2000) experimentally showed that herons do habituate to non-threatening presence of people near colonies. His results showed that colonies in rural areas that seldom experienced human activities left nests more readily than colonies in urban areas. His study concluded that heron breeding productivity was significantly diminished with higher levels of pedestrian activities within 250m of colonies due to decreased nest protection from adults, and increased secondary predation from bald eagles. But he also Rafters at base of heronry, June 3, 2007 App. K-41 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 41 concluded that “…total human activity (including pedestrians, cars, planes and land clearing equipment) had no relationship to heron breeding”. Vos et al. (1985) determined that during the early breeding season, flushing distance of herons was 150m, and dropped to only 60m later in the breeding season. Vennesland (2000) also showed similar results, with more urban colonies having flushing distances ranging from 49m, decreasing to 15m as the breeding season progressed, and rural colonies having flushing distances of 150m and 60m respectively. Personal observation of the colony at Cattle Creek Colorado during June and July of 2007 showed humans (landing rafts from float trips down the Roaring Fork River) at the base of the ponderosa pine trees containing nests (see photo), with no flushing of herons (distances of less than 10m). To reduce flushing and negative impacts to nest success, various buffer distances are recommended in the literature. Buffer areas generally have restrictions limiting or modifying human access or activities which would allow nesting herons to still fulfill life history requirements un-harassed, but buffer areas can also include mitigations such as vegetative screening to hide human activities, which would still allow for herons to continue with their daily activities un-harassed. Buffer area restrictions generally only apply when herons are conducting reproduction activities (which in Colorado, is generally from March 1 through late July). Most studies reviewed by Butler (1991) and Lowsky (2007) recommend a “no human activity” buffer distance of 300m for heronries that have little to no existing human exposure. In Colorado, studies recommended a buffer distance of 200m (Miller 1994, Colorado State Parks 1998) while Vos (1985) recommended 250m. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (Will 2008) recommended a buffer of 500m for the heronry on the RFC conservation easement area, however this large distance is not supported in the scientific literature, and this buffer distance would put the LaFarge gravel pit, the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation Water Treatment Plant, much of the Teller Springs subdivision, and even State Highway 82 in conflict within this buffer distance, not to mention almost all of the REC project. Heronry within RFC Conservation Easement Great blue heron (GBH) generally arrive in the valley in mid March, depending on weather conditions. At this time, 2 ponderosa pine trees comprise the heronry (one tree fell down in 2009 due to bank erosion on the Roaring Fork River), with the one tree on the east bank of the Roaring Fork River (in the conservation easement area) having approximately 10 nests, and the tree on the western side of the river having 15 nests. Other “stick nests” were observed in old cottonwoods, and in another small ponderosa pine, but these “stick nests” have not produced chicks for the past 2 years. If one assumes that each productive nest contains an average of 2 nestlings, then this rookery could potentially produce 50 nestlings. This number is speculative given mortality factors to fledglings. Nevertheless, this heronry is fairly productive given the limited size of area it occupies, when compared to the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (9 nests in 2008) and Woody Creek (15 nests in 2008). In 2010, two golden eagles were observed predating on chicks still in the nest in the conservation easement property adjacent to Golden eagle circling heronry after failed attempt to take a large chick App. K-42 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 42 REC, which incidentally was the cause of the heronry abandonment at the Rock Bottom Ranch. The two ponderosa pine trees comprising the rookery are large, mature trees in excess of 100 feet tall. Surrounding cottonwoods are very decadent, in decline, with large amounts of snags and dead tops. These smaller trees are being used as roosts for adults (and later in the summer, roosts for fledglings). The large amount of snags in the RFC conservation easement area has attracted a small colony of Lewis’ woodpeckers. It is common for heronry trees to succumb to the accumulation of guano, die and begin to fall apart. GBH will then begin to move their heronry to other suitable live trees in the area as their old heronry trees decline. Ponderosa pine (or cottonwood trees for that matter) of a larger size and structure are very limited in the general area. Other ponderosa pine, which are much smaller (less than 60% of the height of the existing trees), occur within the area but are not being used by GBH at this time. Cottonwood and ponderosa pine trees in the area that are large enough to support GBH nests are limited, and are mapped in Figure 11. The next available ponderosa pine trees upriver that are of a similar size of the currently used trees are at the southern end of Aspen Glen, around a series of ponds adjacent to the river. Between River Bend and the Aspen Glen ponderosa pine trees, only two ponderosa exist of similar size, and one of these trees is occupied by the bald eagles at Aspen Glen. RFC Conservation Easement Heronry Stipulations The RFC Conservation Easement identified a heronry within the “Rookery Zone” as part of the Conservation Easement. It should be noted that the original location of the heronry (as depicted in 2000) is no longer viable and is no longer used. The nesting trees previously identified have died (due to heron’s acidic guano) and fallen down and no trees within that area have matured to a size similar to existing heronry trees. However this is not to say that herons would not in the future possibly select the site to re-establish a heronry. The “Rookery Zone” established by the Conservation Easement provide little relevant protection measures to heronries; however the controls and restrictions are still in place pursuant to the Conservation Easement. The following are abbreviated versions of the terms and conditions set forth in the Conservation Easement which REC is bound to and applicable at this time: • Rookery Zone o REC will berm and visually screen all property or lots within 200 meters through planting of dense trees and vegetation o REC will screen all property or lots outside 200 meters of the rookery, but vegetative screening will not be as dense as screening within 200 meters. o All plans and materials for screening shall be reviewed by RFC prior to installation, and screening plans shall be submitted to Garfield County in connection with any development process o No roads, bridges or trails or public access is allowed within this zone o No utilities or infrastructure, aside from buried utilities o No dogs within or adjacent to the Rookery Zone, cats must be kept indoors o No outdoor construction activities adjacent to the Rookery Zone any time between February 15 and July 15. Building heights shall not exceed 25’, and second story decks and accessory dwelling units will be prohibited on the bench immediately above the App. K-43 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 43 heronry. The 2000 Rookery Zone is located within the Conservation Easement pursuant to the agreed upon legal boundaries established between the RFC and the land owner in 2008, and therefore no height or construction timing restrictions currently affect any of the residential areas within the proposed REC project area. • Cattle Creek/Lower Roaring Fork Riparian Zone o REC shall install sufficient screening, through the planting of appropriate natural vegetation along the common boundary of the Cattle Creek/Lower Roaring Fork Riparian Zone and the Rookery Zone, including screening of any adjacent trails built within or adjacent to this portion of the Easement, in order to deter entry into the Rookery zone and minimize the disturbance of the blue heron habitat. o All plans and materials shall be reviewed by RFC and shall be submitted to Garfield County in connection with any development process. Other restrictions regarding development and use of amenities within the RFC Conservation Easement areas can be found in the Grant of Conservation Easement document (February 3, 2000). Impacts of the River Edge Colorado Project Another heronry in the Roaring Fork Valley has undergone significant monitoring and documentation due to three consecutive years of abandonment (Lowsky 2007, J. Lowsky pers. comm. 2008, J. Groves pers. comm. 2008). The abandonment of the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (RBR) was originally assumed to be from a combination of nest tree decadence, human use of the ACES center at Rock Bottom Ranch, mesocarnivore nest predation (e.g., raccoons), and possibly from trail use along the Rio Grande Trail (J. Lowsky pers. comm. 2008, J. Groves, CDOW pers. comm. 2008). Although various experts on great blue herons opined that use of the Rio Grande Trail, which is approximately 200 meters from the heronry, caused the herons to abandon their nests, golden eagles were finally verified to be the causal factor for abandonment in 2008, 2009 and in 2010. The REC heronry has one of the heronry trees separated from the development by the Roaring Fork River, which would help with buffering and reducing a perceived threat from development activities. However, the heronry has a lack of screening vegetation, which means that herons on nests would have unobstructed views of activities on the REC property. While it is well documented in the literature that loud noises, and un-anticipated activities may cause herons to flush, or even abandon a nest site, the entire REC property was previously stripped of topsoil during the spring months by Bair Chase, during the most sensitive time of the nesting season, and this heronry has an unobstructed view of the LaFarge gravel pit operations, and during the summer has daily human activities at the base of their nest trees. Even with all these activities, the herons at this heronry still have successfully reared chicks year after year. The presence of golden eagles beginning to predate chicks at this site in 2010 will be a factor that needs to be considered for the long-term viability of this heronry site. Of all the perturbances to this heronry, golden eagles will by far be the most likely cause of its temporary or permanent abandonment. River Edge Colorado has proposed to limit surface or exterior construction within a 200m buffer area until the herons leave the heronry seasonally (i.e., outside of the breeding season), or abandon the heronry. Activities proposed to occur within the 200m buffer would include immediate berming and planting of vegetative screening (which may occur during the heron’s seasonal occupancy of the nest trees). It is important to note that this heronry has been exposed to similar activities and disturbances in the past, and currently is exposed to very proximal human activities (including noxious weed treatments, etc). REC is proposing to plant 1½ inch caliper trees and 5-foot evergreens in addition to App. K-44 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 44 some smaller trees and shrubs on the berm. Project planners (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners, 12/6/2010) have expressed a concern over planting larger trees on the berm as they may desiccate during the winter months, and believed that smaller trees would be able to produce effective screening well enough. While it is my opinion that the planting of smaller-sized trees would cause a delay in achieving taller and more effective screening vegetation (i.e., a five-foot tree would take longer to achieve mature heights and would support less lateral screening through branch density and cover than, for example a 10 or 15-foot tree), the issue of whether or not herons would abandon the heronry if the trees were not at full maturity or density is the true issue. Having smaller trees more widely spaced would produce less effective vegetation screening, but given the distances to homes even a sub-standard vegetation screen would still not likely produce conditions that would cause herons to abandon their heronry. But obviously, the taller and thicker the vegetative screening the better the shielding of herons potential view of human activities at the REC development. Approximately 11 homes will be within the 200m buffer area. It is my professional opinion that with screening vegetation and berming, there is a relatively low likelihood that herons would abandon the heronry. However, the exact threshold of development at which herons may perceive a “threat” is unknown and would be speculatory: as home construction encroached upon the heronry it would make sense based on the literature that herons would be more likely to change their use and behavioral patterns. But this heronry is subject to almost daily disturbances by boaters, anglers and bird-watchers approaching their nest trees either on foot or from the river during the summer months. There is also human activity and loud noises from the LaFarge Gravel Pits nearby and the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District’s water treatment plant. The Roaring Fork Conservancy has also indicated that they visit the conservation easement area multiple times during the summer to conduct monitoring and stewardship activities. This heronry was also subject to daily heavy equipment operation for months within distances less than 50 meters of the nest trees during Bair Chase’s topsoil salvaging operations. Nevertheless, REC modified their construction plan to delay heavy construction within the 200m buffer until after July 15th, with the understanding that by this time the herons would be very far along in their rearing of chicks ( indeed some chicks would likely have fledged), and herons would not likely abandon chicks so late in their development. Vegetative screening should have a strong component (60 to 70%) of evergreen trees (such as ponderosa pine [Pinus ponderosa] and juniper [Sabina osteosperma]). This is because during the sensitive time of heron pair bonding, nest selection and egg laying (late March through early May), deciduous trees have not yet leafed out, and visual screening from deciduous trees would be very marginal. Spruce trees would provide more screening, but they are not indicative of local vegetation, and spruce would require more nurturing to keep them persisting, while ponderosa pines are more drought tolerant and hardy. Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii), hawthorn (Cratageus spp.) and box elder (Acer negundo) should also make up a secondary component of the vegetative screening (30 to 40%). An on- site determination of heights and densities of trees and additional heights of any potential berming would need to occur, and the use of story-poles should occur to ensure that nests are actually visually screened. REC is proposing to develop a buffer area planting and berming plan during the pre- development phase for RFC review, and to implement the plan as part of pre-development site reclamation. Summary- The heronry on the conservation easement property is comprised of two trees, but is relatively productive despite being near a gravel pit, a water treatment plant, and seeing daily human activities on the river and around the nest trees. Despite this, there is some risk that during construction of the REC project herons may change their behaviors and adults may temporarily leave their nests, but given the distances between the proposed homes and nest trees it is doubtful that the App. K-45 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 45 development of REC would cause heronry abandonment or mortality to chicks. Having said that, a lack of nest attendance by adults puts chicks more at risk to eagle predation. It is inevitable that once the ponderosa pines currently used as the heronry begin to die-off (from guano accumulation), herons would abandon the site. Further, the recent golden eagle predation on chicks at this site may cause seasonal or even permanent abandonment of this heronry. Berming and screening vegetation will help mitigate some impacts, but seasonal closure of the foot path and enforcement of the closure will be the most important component of proposed mitigation measures. Use of the proposed foot path during the spring months would by far be the most likely negative impact from this project to cause heronry abandonment, and this trail should be closed from February 15 through July 15 to minimize human activities near the heronry (although a closure from March 1 through August 1 would likely be more effective given observed use of the site). Heronries do eventually move due to nest tree decadence, or from other factors (such as golden eagle harassment). Once the current heronry site is abandoned, it is likely that the herons would move their heronry upriver, and continued development of REC would have negligible impacts to herons. The planting of the 200m buffer with screening vegetation and berming should allow for the rest of the REC development to move forward with minimalized potential impacts to great blue heron. However, it is my opinion that REC’s proposed planting of smaller sized trees would delay the full effectiveness of the vegetation screen, and having a foot path so close of the conservation easement area may reduce habitat effectiveness within the conservation easement property. The required construction of the “holding pond” within the “Rookery Zone” would help improve habitats around the REC project for herons, but use of this pond site for interpretation or educational activities will place high levels of human activity very close (indeed within the conservation easement area) during sensitive times of the year for breeding birds (e.g., herons) and mammals. It is my recommendation to minimize activities which draw human activities to the conservation easement area, or near the conservation easement area in order to preserve conservation values. Given that the pond site overlooks much of the conservation easement area, human activities overlooking the conservation easement area will have disproportionately high impacts on habitat effectiveness within the conservation easement area, including potential heron nesting back into the Rookery Zone. App. K-46 kk107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 10 Heron Nesting Locations 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Conservation Easement Heron Nest Location Other Property k 200 Meter Heron Nest Buffer 46ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-47 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 47 4.6 Bald Eagle Bald eagle winter in the greater Colorado River and Roaring Fork River watersheds beginning in late November and migrate back north to summering ground in March. During the winter months, bald eagle numbers in the Roaring Fork watershed may swell to 10 to 15 eagles. In the past 5 years the numbers of year-round resident eagles in the greater areas has steadily increased and now around 7 different nest sites are located in the Roaring Fork and Colorado River corridors in Garfield County. For the past 50 years, a bald eagle nest site has been located on the Aspen Glen subdivision. Nesting at this site has been successful for the past 5 years. Prior to this, the next most recent successful nesting at this site was in the mid 1970’s. Bald eagles were delisted from the Endangered Species Act in July 2007, but nests and nesting activity are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles primarily use the REC property for roosting on trees near the river and hunt for fish. Bald eagles are also known to scavenge on carcasses of deer and elk within the greater area. Bald eagles seen on the REC property during the summer months adjacent to the river are likely the pair associated with the Aspen Glen nest. The greatest potential impact to bald eagle will be during the development phase. Loud machinery and construction activities may preclude bald eagle from fully utilizing perching sites on and near the property, when these activities are on more of the western side of the property nearer the Roaring Fork River. However the eagles from the Aspen Glen subdivision are well accustomed to human activities, vehicle traffic, loud noises, and even gravel mining operations from the nearby LaFarge Gravel Pit. Therefore, the level of activities anticipated from construction and development of REC may indeed preclude some use of trees near the REC property for short periods of time, bald eagles would still likely be able to find and utilize other perches in the area, and no significant changes in behavioral patterns would be expected. Human activities occurring on foot (e.g., on foot trails or potentially activities around the “holding pond” in the easement area) would likely produce more of an avoidance reaction to eagles than would construction activities. But given the small size and scale of this project in relation to the overall available habitat for bald eagle along the Roaring Fork River, bald eagles should be able to still find and procure enough food resources to continue to persist and successfully fledge young out of the Aspen Glen nest site. 4.7 Lewis’s Woodpecker Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) has fairly unique flying patterns with long glides and aerial acrobatics, which is uncommon among woodpeckers. Distributed in the United States west of the Great Plains, Lewis’s woodpecker favors open forests, ranging in altitude from low-elevation riparian areas to higher-elevation burns and pine forests. Like all other woodpeckers, it requires snags (standing, dead, or partly dead trees) for nesting, although it is not anatomically specialized for excavating in wood and the trees it selects for nesting are generally well-decayed. Lewis’s woodpecker was included in this assessment as it is fairly uncommon in the valley, the US Forest Service locally lists this species as Sensitive, and there is a breeding population of this bird on the property. Species Ecology Synopsis The sporadic distribution and relatively uncommon status of this species within much of its range present a serious challenge for existing local-scale census methods. Broad-scale population trends indicate that numbers have declined markedly throughout the species’ range since the 1960s, and several examples of local reductions in distribution have been reported. Possible reasons include loss App. K-48 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 48 of suitable habitat, presence of pesticides in the environment, and competition for nest holes or general disturbance by the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Lewis’s woodpeckers are migratory, arriving in breeding and summer ranges in May, and departing again in early to mid-September. Lewis’s woodpeckers from the REC property likely migrate westward towards the lower Uncompahgre, Gunnison, and Colorado River valleys, but some birds may migrate as far south as northern Mexico. Their migration is slow and is diurnal. Important aspects of breeding habitat include an open canopy, a brushy understory offering ground cover, dead or downed woody material, available perches, and abundant insects. Three principal habitats are open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood, and logged or burned pine forest; however, breeding birds are also found in oak woodland, nut and fruit orchards, pinyon pine/juniper woodland, a variety of pine and fir forests, and agricultural areas including farms and ranchlands. In the Roaring Fork valley, Lewis’s woodpeckers are often found in older cottonwood stands with abundant snags. These snags are often formed in decadent cottonwood stands or in stands near old irrigation ditches or ir rigated fields, where the water has been piped or the irrigation ditch no longer functions and widespread cottonwood mortality has occurred. Lewis’s woodpeckers in the valley are relatively rare above 7,000 feet in elevation. Their diet varies with seasonal abundance of food items: primarily free-living (not wood-boring) insects, acorns or other nuts, and fruit. Lewis’s woodpeckers hunt for insects in the air, on tree trunks and branches, in bushes, and on the ground. They use snags, telephone poles, fence posts, and other locations with open views for perches when fly-catching. Such habitat features, and the furrowed bark of mature cottonwood trees, provide crevices in which Lewis’s Woodpeckers store acorns, other nuts, and grains during fall and winter. Near streams, ponds, and wet meadows, Lewis’s woodpecker will take advantage of locally abundant hatches of insects. They seldom if ever excavate for wood-boring insects; instead, they catch insects by fly-catching and gleaning. They glean like other woodpeckers, by starting at the base of a tree or trunk and working up or out to smaller branches, using visual cues during gleaning rather than auditory cues. In some cases, they may raid acorn caches, and feed in orchards. Lewis’s woodpeckers catch insects in flight generally by hawking from a perch, but also engage in “nonspecific” or “direct” long-duration foraging flights, sometimes amid swallows and swifts over fields and open water. They scan almost continuously for insects between fly-catching bouts, usually from the top of a pole or dead tree. Lewis’s woodpeckers also eat acorns, which is generally harvested, shelled, and broken into pieces. Pieces (or whole meat if unbroken) are stored in a natural crack or cavity. They generally pick acorns and nuts from branches rather than from the ground, perching crosswise above the food item, and sometimes hanging from underneath. They use tops of poles or broken-topped snags, with a suitable crack in which the food item can be wedged, as an anvil for shelling and breaking up acorns and nuts. The main threat to this species is the loss of habitat. In areas such as western Colorado, where Lewis’s woodpeckers are more closely associated with cottonwood stands, one study documented declines in this habitat. The surface area of cottonwood stands declined 31% along the lower Arkansas River and 9% along the South Platte River. During the same period, there were increases in the shrub understory layer, with prominent invasion of tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). The loss of cottonwoods is attributed to attrition of standing dead trees and lack of regeneration of seedlings because of flood control, low water-flow rates, and intense grazing from cattle. In addition, the frequency and severity of fires has increased because fuel loading increases with invading tamarisk. With the burning of much of the App. K-49 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 49 cottonwood galleries near Ranch at Roaring Fork in 2008, there may have been an abundance of snags created, but private landowners in the burn area cut down most of the standing dead cottonwood trees. Impacts of Development The development of the REC property would have minor negative indirect impacts on Lewis’s woodpecker, but there should be no direct impacts on habitat or long-term ability for Lewis’s woodpecker to persist on the site. As the development is avoiding activities within the RFC Conservation Easement areas, the current cottonwood snags and existing habitat for the woodpecker would not be impacted. Management of wetland areas for mosquito control may reduce the flying insect population in the area; however, through the widespread preservation of the wetland areas, there should be ample insect production for the woodpeckers. Lewis’s woodpeckers may be negatively impacted by human activities, and the loud noises and activity associated with construction may preclude some nesting activities near the development. However, this would be short-term in general, and it is likely that most woodpecker activities would continue to occur in the area throughout the development process. The greatest long-term potential impact to Lewis’s woodpecker is the continued mortality of cottonwood trees along the slopes due to the cessation of flood irrigation practices. Over time, cottonwood snags will fall down (as is the natural process), and potential nesting cavities will become more limited. As these cottonwood snags are in the RFC Conservation Easement area, management of cottonwood stands and snags will be under the discretion of the RFC. Once trees within the development become large enough to provide cavity nesting habitats, it is likely that Lewis’s woodpecker would begin to utilize these habitats, as they do in downtown Glenwood Springs neighborhoods with larger deciduous trees. App. K-50 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 50 5 Recommended Wildlife Mitigations The following are standard wildlife impact minimization efforts which are commonly recommended by wildlife biologists including CDOW, and have been shown to be appropriate for the settings around River Edge Colorado. Many of these recommendations are considered to be “best management practices” to consider for wildlife, which would allow for continued wildlife use of areas within the area around the development. These may be significantly modified based on planning outcomes, and do not include mitigation measures already incorporated into the REC proposal. . 5.1 Lighting & Game Use Because the open space areas associated with Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River will receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, the indirect nighttime lighting of the open space areas and transient lighting from roads and homes (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Further, lighting of open spaces beyond the building envelope areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright back-yard lights illuminating open space areas). Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10’ off of roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas in order to minimize unintended “spotlighting” of foraging game at night. Determination of these areas would likely need to occur after the development is mostly complete. 5.2 Roads Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following items are recommended: o Fences along the roads should not be allowed (aside from elk fence along SH-82) o Cut and/or fill slopes along the roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution. 5.3 Trails The following trail closures should be implemented and enforced by an HOA: o Trails within REC and continuous open space areas should be closed during the sensitive deer and elk winter season (December 1 through March 31). o Dogs should be on a leash year-round, aside from within designated dog-parks or within enclosed yards. o Any potential future trails within Conservation Easement areas will be reviewed and approved by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. 5.4 Fences Fences within the developed neighborhoods do not need to comply with wildlife friendly fencing standards, given this development is more of an urban setting. Fences within Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors would generally not occur, and any fencing within these areas would need to be wildlife friendly, and would be reviewed and approved by the REC and the Roaring Fork Conservancy. As previously discussed, any potential elk fence is intended to keep elk and deer from entering more “urban” areas, for the safety of wildlife and residents. App. K-51 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 51 5.5 Landscaping and Revegetation As the open space areas are used as winter range (and severe winter range), reclamation of road cuts, infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles. Revegetation should also occur as soon as possible, however planting in the spring after big game have left the area would be best as otherwise any newly planted materials would likely be browsed first, and plants with little time to set roots will likely be pulled up by grazing big game. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually in order to minimize their spread and impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities. Please see the Reclamation Plan for additional discussion and recommendations for vegetation management. 5.6 Domestic Dogs Dogs can have a significant impact on wildlife and the ability for wildlife to effectively use otherwise available habitats. Dogs can chase and kill wildlife, or so exhaust and injure wildlife that wildlife dies later. Larger mammals such as deer and elk are especially vulnerable during the winter/early spring, when their energy reserves are depleted, food resources are most limited, and most of the adult females are pregnant. Young wildlife are also vulnerable to attack and harassment by dogs. Even if not chased by dogs, wildlife tends to avoid areas where dogs are kept outside, which has the effect of creating a barrier to wildlife movement and reducing the available habitat. Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing- eye dogs or assistance dogs for the disabled, should never be allowed to run free in Conservation Easement areas or during the winter months (December 1 through April 30). As the open space areas are a very important big game winter loafing area, it is inevitable that dogs allowed within the open space areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, even under leash control, will escape control and chase and likely injure wildlife. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following recommendations are presented: o As required by Garfield County, dogs will be limited to one per dwelling unit (plus young up to 3 months old). This restriction should also apply to cats. o Dogs should not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months unless under leash control. o Any fenced enclosures constructed for the overnight maintenance of dogs or cats must be within property lines. o Loose dogs should be prohibited. This includes dogs owned by contractors, subcontractors, delivery personnel, home owners and their guests. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to big game through direct and indirect mortality, increased stress, and displacement from preferred ranges. In the past, CDOW has had numerous reports of dogs brought to construction sites by workers which chase and harass wildlife. Due to the location of this property near sensitive wildlife habitat areas, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. One opportunity is of putting in a “dog park” on the property, away from the best big game habitats. This could assist with keeping dogs from running loose on the property, chasing wildlife, and otherwise harassing big game, or precluding habitat use through barking and intimidation of wildlife. This would also provide homeowners a place where dogs could run free and play without fear of harming wildlife or running off. App. K-52 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 52 5.7 Domestic Cats Domestic cats can have significant impacts on local breeding bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations in area habitats. Keeping cats indoors would protect a major component of the potential non-game wildlife use in the area. Homeowners should be informed through their HOA regarding the impact of domestic cats on wildlife. 5.8 Bears Black bears can occur in the area from spring (late April) through fall (late November). There are existing problems with bears, garbage, and people in Garfield County and some bears have shown signs of habituation and aggression towards residents. Areas near the property are considered to be “bear- human conflict areas” by CDOW. The Gambel’s oak, serviceberry and chokecherry stands on the property provide black bear fall foraging areas. Continued bear use of these areas will likely continue even after full development. With the residential setting, it is inevitable that garbage and food sources will become available to bears, and human/bear conflicts will likely occur. These conflicts, however, can be minimized by implementation of appropriate mitigation measures: o There should be no dumps that have edible materials associated with the construction and post-construction activities. Construction workers and contractors should be notified and educated about the importance of keeping trash, food and drink items properly disposed of to discourage bear activities in the area. o Residential garbage should be placed in bear-proof dumpsters, individual bear-proof trash containers, or kept in trash cans inside closed buildings. Trash cans should not be left outside overnight prior to trash collection, as bears quickly become habituated to these schedules. o Pets should not be fed outside. Bowls of pet food left around buildings will attract bears and other predators (e.g. coyotes or red fox) and nuisance species (e.g. skunks, raccoon, woodrats). o Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and removed altogether during the fall months (September through late November). Catchment basins should be used underneath bird feeders to catch seed. Bears are known to visit bird- feeding sites where seeds have accumulated on the ground. o Compost piles should be forbidden, unless they are used in centralized, wildlife-proof areas, not only to reduce attracting bears, but other wildlife species such as raccoon, skunk, red fox, etc. o Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner’s brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW. The presence of community gardens and orchards will undoubtedly attract bears, and there could be long-term human-bear conflicts in REC because of orchards and community gardens. Both community gardens and orchards should consider fencing to keep out (or discourage) bears and even elk & deer damage. Because of this, CDOW will likely have increased service needs in the area. 5.9 Birds Many sensitive bird species utilize the conservation easement area adjacent to REC; therefore the following recommendations are presented: o Pet cats should remain indoors, as cats will readily prey upon these species and can have a significant impact on bird use in the area and on bird populations. App. K-53 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 53 o Bird feeders are discouraged due to black bear use in the area. Bird feeders can be used in the winter (from mid November through mid March), as bears are hibernating during this time. o All bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, should be hung away from any window or deck, be at least 10’ from the ground, and be suspended between two trees or posts. Any seed feeders should have a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seed. o A 200 meter activity buffer will be annually placed around trees with active heron nests. This buffer would not be applicable to empty or unused nests or roost trees. From March 1 through August 1, no external construction activities or new building erection, crane use, or trail use/construction may occur within the 200 meter buffer area. The exact location of the buffer area will be set annually by a site visit to heron nesting trees by an accredited wildlife biologist during the spring months. 5.10 Open Space Management REC should consider incorporating the following: o All persons within the development should be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing wildlife as part of effort to force wildlife off open space areas, around homes, or conservation easement areas on the property. In incidences where deer or elk become a nuisance within the development, passive means (i.e. permanent or temporary ungulate fencing) may be employed with coordination through CDOW. o The HOA will have the right to locally restrict wildlife from sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected would not restrict free movement of wildlife but would be used only in small, isolated areas to help direct wildlife and/or people. o Soft trails around the property (especially those trails on the western side of the development) should be closed during the winter months (December 1-March 31) to allow for continued big game winter range use. The soft trail nearest the currently occupied heronry trees should be closed from March 1 through August 1 to be in compliance with RFC stipulations within the “Rookery Zone” section of the Grant of Conservation Easement. However, if herons abandon the heronry there would be no need for such a restriction. o Roaring Fork Transit Authority should consider closure of the Rio Grande Trail from December 1 through March 31 to allow for elk wintering opportunities. At this time the wintertime trail use is reducing the availability of the area to wintering elk. This recommendation is not enforceable by River Edge Colorado, but RFTA, as a partner with REC, should consider the impacts of their recreational amenities. App. K-54 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 54 6 Vegetation & Noxious Weeds The entire property was traversed in 2008 for a comprehensive noxious weed survey. Colorado listed noxious weeds were recorded with a Trimble GeoXT GPS. Data gathered on each point included species, the approximate size of the infestation, the density of the infestation (in percent total vegetation cover), and the dominant vegetation type (grass, forb, shrub or tree) surrounding the infestation. GPS points were loaded into GIS (geographic information system) to show the location of the weeds on an aerial photo. Additionally, polygons were drawn in GIS to show the larger more dispersed infestations on the property (see attached weed maps). Information on general vegetation condition and species diversity was also noted. 6.1 Upper Bench The majority of the property lies on an old river terrace that lies about 75 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The type of species that are present on the disturbed upper areas of the property depends upon the underlying soil texture. The finer soils and topsoil stockpiles on the property were dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and Jim Hill mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). The noxious weeds such as Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), common burdock (Arctium minus), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) are all common are generally widespread, but occur in relatively sparse densities. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) is very common within this area. REC has been actively treating these weeds since 2008. The more coarse textured soils on the upper bench of the property are dominated by patchy, sparse stands of narrow leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Finer textured topsoil stockpiles showing dominance by cheatgrass Narrowleaf cottonwood establishing on coarse textured soils App. K-55 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 55 6.2 Lower Bench The lower bench is not owned by River Edge Colorado, but they are required to perform some management activities on the property as part of the Conservation Easement. The property with the easement is directly adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. In most regions of the property the slope down to the river is exceedingly steep and is dense with woody vegetation such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), and oakbrush (Quercus gambelii). In some regions of the property, these steep slopes are directly adjacent to the river. In other places, river bottom/ riparian vegetation communities are present in areas of prolonged sediment deposition as a result of river configuration and water flow dynamics. These river bottom areas are dominated by narrowleaf cottonwoods, silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argenteus), hawthorn (Cratagus rivularis & C. salina), coyote willow (Salix exigua), canary reed grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and other pasture grasses. This lower region also has some river side channels running through them. These wetland areas include species such as water sedge (Carex aquatilus), rushes (Juncus balticus, J. ensifolius), and spike rush (Eleocharis palustris). Common mullein and yellow sweetclover on coarser soils App. K-56 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 56 Noxious weeds are both dense and abundant in the riparian areas. Species include Scotch thistle, houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), plumeless thistle, common burdock (Arctium minus), Canada thistle (Breea arvense), common tansy, and St. John’s wort (Hypericum perfoliatum). These areas are held under a Conservation Easement by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Dense stands of oxeye daisy in Conservation Easement areas St. Johnswort and oxeye daisy in coyote willows App. K-57 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 57 Weed Management Management of noxious weeds on this property will need to continue to be consistent and persistent. It is well known that all weeds are opportunists and easily invade disturbed soils and out-compete native vegetation very easily. Although REC is currently treating weeds, it is strongly suggested that weed control treatments continue to occur before development begins. A reduction in weed populations now will assist in weed control going forward. Since all the uplands have already been disturbed, and intensive landscaping will occur in this area, there is little desirable vegetation to avoid with herbicides or mechanical treatments. However, the riparian areas will need a careful prioritization and herbicide application and/or other methods of control as these areas are more ecologically sensitive. Most of the riparian areas require RFC coordination for weed control. Prioritization of Weed Control Since the extent of the weed problem is known, a strategic prioritization of weed control activities should be executed. Small, isolated patches of weeds and/or new invaders to the area should be higher priority than very large, well-established infestations. Therefore, high priority should be given to: o Weeds that are new or relatively uncommon to the region. This would include the small populations of St. John’s wort. o Small infestations of species known to be highly invasive. This would include oxeye daisy. o Infestations likely to spread to other areas such as road sides, trails and drainages. This would include houndstongue and common burdock that is close to highly traveled trails as well as weeds that are directly adjacent to any water courses. o Edges of large infestations. This would include the edges of the large infestations of Canada and Scotch thistles and common tansy around the edges of the property. Lower priority will be given to: o Large established infestations that would be difficult to eradicate. o Less invasive species that only infest highly disturbed areas. Additionally, regular communication with the Garfield County weed program can be helpful to become aware of the potential invaders in the area as well as any new herbicides or other control methods they have found to be particularly effective. Their contact number is (970) 625-8601. App. K-58 ^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_60006010 6020 5970599059805960 59506030 6040 6 050 6060 6070 6080 6 090 6100611 0 6120 594 0 6130 614059306 150 6160 617061806190 6200 6210 62206 2 6 0 62706230624 06280 59206000606 0 6 010 6200 59705940 6000 59706 030 6210 618 0 6020 599060 4 0 6 030 59905950 6 010 61505990 616 0 5 9 4 0 6080 607 0 618 0 5990 5990 5950 6 160 60206200 6 140 596060105990 603 0 59906030 59905 9 8 0 61 9 0 602 0 6150 62206110 6090 6150 61606020 605 0 6 060 600059 4 0 6020 6 1 2 0 596061206040 6130 5980 6010 6040 6020 6020 6180 600 0 6150 6140 6130 60006070 602 0 603060006100 5990 599060306160 6020 60105940601 0 6160 5950 5990 6 030 6010594 0 6 110 599 0 600060206160 59606030 6 140 6040 59505940613 0 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 11 Noxious Weeds 82 82 R o a r in g F o r k R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major Scale: 1" = 800' Feet 0 800 1,600400 Canada Thistle St. John's Wort Burdock Common Tansy Houndstongue Musk Thistle Oxeye Daisy Plumeless Thistle Scotch Thistle Common Tansy Plumeless Thistle Scotch Thistle ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 58ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-59 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 59 7 Literature Cited Adams, A.W. 1982. Migration (Chapter 7), in Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and conservation. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. Alexander, S.M., N.M. Waters and P.C. Paguet. 2005. Traffic volume and highway permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The Canadian Geographer, 49(4), pg 321-331. Alldredge, A.W., J.F. Lipscomb, and F.W. Whicker. 1974. Forage intake rates of mule deer estimated with fallout cersium-137. J. Wildl. Mgmnt., 38:508-516. Anderson, A.E. and D.C. Bowden. 1977. Mule deer-coyote interactions. Pp. 15-16 in Colorado Game Res. Review, 1975-1976 (O.B. Cope, ed.). Colorado Div. Wildl., Ft. Collins, CO. 73pp. Andree, W. M. 2006. Personal communication. Vail District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Andree, W. M. 2007. Personal communication, July 5, 2007. Vail District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1994. Colorado birds, a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp. Arft, A.M. 1995. The genetics, demography and conservation management of the rare orchid Spiranthes diluvialis. PhD dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Bailey, A. M., R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Mus. of Nat. Hist., Denver, CO. Bjorkland, R. G. 1975. On the death of a Midwestern heronry. Wilson Bulletin 87:284-287. Boyd, R.J. 1978. American elk, pp. 11-29 in J.W. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, Big Game of North America, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg PA. Boyd, R.J. and E.E. Rayland. 1971. Breeding dates of Colorado elk as estimated by fetal growth curves. Colorado Division of Wildlife Information Leaflet No. 88. Broderick, J. Personal Communications, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Burke, J. 2007. Personal Communication. Forest Silviculturalist, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Butler, R.W. 1991. A review of the biology and conservation of the great clue heron (Ardea herodias) in British Columbia. Technical report Number 154. Canadian Wildlife Service, pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia, Canada. Butler, R.W. 1992. Great Blue Heron in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds. The Brids of North America, No. 25. The Academy of natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. and te American Ornithological Union, Washington DC. Carpenter, L.H. 1976. Nitrogen-herbicide effects on sagebrush deer range. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, C). 159pp. Christensen, A.G. L.J. Lyon and J. Unsworth. 1993. Elk management in the Northern Region: considerations in forest plan updates or revisions, USDA Forest Service, GTR INT-303. Missoula, MT. App. K-60 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 60 Clevanger, A. P., B. Chruszcz, and K. Gunson. 2001 Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife- vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:646-653. Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology. 14:47-56. Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2005. Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movements of large mammals. Biological Conservation. 121:453-464. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Natural Diversity Information System. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/index.html Cramer, P. 2007. Elk use of existing structures and wildlife crossings in Western U.S. and Canada. Unpublished Report. USGS Cooperative Research Unit, Utah Transportation Center, Utah State University. DeVergie, W.J. 1989. Thesis: Elk movements, dispersal, and winter range carrying capacity in the upper Eagle River Valley, Colorado. Dept. of Fishery & Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2005. Evaluation of measures to minimize wildlife-vehicle collisions and maintain permeability across highways- State Route 260, Arizona, USA. Interim Report from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2006. Characteristics of elk-vehicle collisions and comparison to GPS-determined highway crossing patterns. Pages 461-477 in C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott, eds. 2005 proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Tansportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Assessment of Elk Highway Permeability by Using Global Positioning System Telemetry. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(4):1107-1117; 2007). Edwards, J. S. 1972. Arthropod fallout on Alaskan snow. Arct. Alp. Res. 4: 167–176. Farrell, J.E., L.R. Irby, and P.T. McGowan. 2002. Strategies for ungulate-vehicle collision mitigation. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 8:1-18. Federal Register 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. FR 70(90) 24870-24934. http://www.USFWS.gov/endangered/candidates/2005.CNOR%2011May05%20FR.pdf Fertig, W., R. Black and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for the USFWS and Central Utah Conservancy District. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. University Press of Colorado. P.O. Box 849, Niwot, CO 80544. Freddy, D. 2003. Personal communication with Keith Giezentanner regarding proposed parameters of elk populations. Biologist with CDOW. App. K-61 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 61 Freddy, D. J., W.M. Bronaugh and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Response of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14:63-68. In Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Freddy, D., L.Baker, R.M. Bartmann, and R.C. Kufeld. 1993. Deer and elk management analysis guide, 1992-1994. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Freddy, D.J. 1987. The White River elk herd: a perspective, 1960-1985. Tech. Publication, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 37:1-64. Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95- 107 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Gagnon, J.W., T.C. Theimer, N.L. Dodd, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Traffic Volume Alters Elk Distribution and Highway Crossings in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7): 2318-2323; 2007. George, S. and K Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133:107–117. Gibbs, J.P., and L.K. Kinkel. 1997. Determinants of the size and location of Gret Blue Heron colonies. Colonial Waterbirds 20:1-7. Giezentanner, K.I. 2004. Management indicator species monitoring protocol, White River National Forest, Rocky Mountain elk. USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest unpublished report. Glenwood Springs, CO. 10p. Giezentanner, K.I. 2007-2008. Personal Communications. Forest Ecologist, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Groves, J. Personal Communications, Carbondale District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Grubb, M.M. 1979. Effects of increased noise levels on nesting herons and egrets. Proceedings of 1978 Conference of Colonial Waterbird Group: 49-54. Hart, J.H. and D.L. Hart. 2001. Interaction among cervids, fungi, and aspen in northwest Wyoming. Pages 197-205 In: Sheppard, W.D., D. Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren, and L.G. Lane (compilers), sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings; June 13-15, 2000, Grand Junction, CO. proceedings RMRS-P-18. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO. Hillis, J.M., M. J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm. Pages 38-43 in Proceedings of Elk Vulnerability Symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Hoover, R. L. and D. L. Wills, eds. 1984. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Published by Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 459pp. Kelsall, J.P., K. Etienne, C. Strong, M. McCaustland, and M.L. Parkes. 2006. Annotated atlas and implications for conservation of heron and egret nesting colonies in the San Francisco Bay area, ACR Technical Report 90-3-17. Audubon Canyon Ranch, Marshall CA. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Div. Wildl., Denver. App. K-62 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 62 Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. Knight, R.L. and D. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pp 51–69. in Knight, R.L. and D. Cole, editors. eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington D.C. Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington D.C. Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. (eds.). 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and recreation: coexistence through management and research. Island, Washington, D.C. Lenth, B.E., R.L. Knight, M.E. Brennen. 2008. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. Natural Areas Journal 28(3):218-227. Leptich, D.J. and P. Zager 1991. Road access management effects on elk mortality and population dynamics. From proceedings of a symposium on elk vulnerability; Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. April 1-12-1991.(In USDA Forest Service, 2000). Loveless, C.M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a mule deer winter range. Tech. Bull., Colorado Div. Game, Fish and Parks, 20:1-124. Lowsky, J. 2007. Great Blue Heron Abandonment. Memorandum to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, June 7, 2007. Colorado Wildlife Science, Basalt, CO. 22pp. Lowsky, J. 2008. Personal Communications. Wildlife Biologist/Principal, Colorado Wildlife Science, Basalt, CO. Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. J. Forestry. 77:658-660. Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. J. Forestry. 81:592-595. Lyon, L.J. and A.G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 557-582 in D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas, Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Lyon, L.J. and A.L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pages 443-477 in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PE. Lyon, L.J. and C.E. Jensen. 1980. Management implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in Montana. J. Wildlife Management, 44:352-361. Mackie, R.J., K.L. Hamlin, and D.F. Pac. 1982. Mule deer. Pp. 862-877, in wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics (J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds.) Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Baltimore, 1147pp. Markham, B.J. and S.H. Brechtel. 1979. Status and management of three colonial waterbird species in Alberta. Proceedings of 1978 Conference of Colonial Waterbird Group. 2:55-64. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife response to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124–132. CSA App. K-63 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 63 Morrison, J.R. 1992. Thesis: The effects of ski area expansion on elk, and accuracy of 2 telemetry systems in mountainous terrain. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Moul, I.E. 1990. Environmental contaminants and breeding failure at a Great Blue Heron colony on Vancouver Island. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Nagy, J.G. and R.P. Tengerdy. 1967. Antibacterial action of essential oils of Artemisia as an ecological factor II. Antibacterial action of the volatile oils of Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) on bacteria from the rumen of mule deer. Appl. Microbiology. 16:441-444. NatureServe. 2008. Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak comprehensive report. NatureServe Explorer (www.natureserve.org/explorer) accessed 23 June 2008) NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2007. Version 1.4 . Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. Nelson, J.R. and T.A. Leege. 1982. Nutritional requirements and food habits. Pages 323-367 in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Odell, E. and R.L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:1143–1150. CrossRef, CSA Petterson, E. S. 2010. Reclamation Plan for River Edge Colorado. Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Glenwood Springs, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2006a. Ecological Assessment for the Los Amigos project, Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2006b. Wildlife Assessment for the Hunt Ranch project, Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2007a. Wildlife Assessment for the Ginn Battle Mountain Resort. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2007b. Ecological Assessment for the Spring Valley Ranch project, Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Phillips, G.E. 1998. Effects of human-induced disturbance during calving season on reproductive success of elk in the upper Eagle River Valley, Colorado. Dissertation, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. J. Wildlife Management, 64:521-530. Pierson, K. and V.J. Tepedino. 2000. The pollination ecology of a rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: Implications for conservation. Report prepared for Uinta National Forest by Utah State University, Logan, UT. Quinney, T.E. 1982. Growth, diet, and mortality of nestling Great Blue Herons. Wilson Bulletin 94:571-577. Riedel, L. 2008. Personal communication. City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Boulder CO. App. K-64 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 64 Rodgers, J.A. and H.T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. Romme, W. H., M. G. Turner. 1991. Implications of global climatic change for biogeographic patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 5: 373–386. Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, W. C. Hunter, B. W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the lower Colorado River valley. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. J. of Wildlife Management, 64:672-684. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gnidek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinalki, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142p. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, B. G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3: www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Seidel, J.W. 1977. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado, in Proceedings Western States Elk Workshop, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO. Sipes, S.D and V.J. Tepedino. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: Breeding system, pollination and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4): 929- 938). Sipes, S.D., P.G. Wolf and V.J. Tepedino. 1995. The pollination and reproduction of Spiranthes diluvialis: Implications for conservation of four populations. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by Utah State University, Logan, UT. Skagen, S.K., C.P. Melcher, and E. Muths. 2001. The interplay of habitat change, human disturbance and species interactions in a waterbird colony. The American Midland Naturalist 145:18-29. Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2002. Elk habitat selection and evaluation. Pages 531-556 in D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas, Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Spellerberg, L.F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 7, 317-333. Suzuki, K. 1997. Aspen regeneration in elk winter range of Rocky Mountain National Park and Roosevelt National Forest. Masters Thesis, Colorado State University, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Ft. Collins, CO. Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill. 1982. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Thomas, J.W., H. Black, Jr., R.J. Scherzinger and R.J. Pedersen. 1979. Deer and elk, pp. 104-127 in J.W. Thomas, ed., Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 553. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Thompson, R.T. 2007. Stillwater Bald Eagle Conservation Plan, Town of Silt, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder CO. 36pp. App. K-65 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 65 Thompson, R.W., L. Sakata & E. Petterson. 2008. Habitat Conservation Plan for Battle Mountain Resort, Minturn, CO. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. in progress. Towry, R.K., Jr. 1984. Wildlife habitat requirements. Pages 72-209 in R.L. Hoover and D.L. Wills eds. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Spiranthes diluvialis as a Threatened species. Federal Register 57(12):2048-2052. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: The 1995 List. USFWS, Office of Migratory Bird Manage. I49.2: M 58/4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid and initiation of a 5-year review. Federal Register 69(196): 60605-60607. U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National Forest (as amended). Glenwood Springs, CO. U.S. Forest Service. 2002b. Record of Decision for the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision. Glenwood Springs, CO. U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Final Environmental Assessment, Management Indicator Species (MIS) Forest Plan Amendment 03/06, to the 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan- 2002 Amendment for the White River National Forest. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Vennesland, R.G. 2000. The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on the breeding decisions and productivity of the Great Blue Heron in south-costal British Columbia. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. response of breeding great blue heron (Ardea herondias) to human disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. Watts, B.D. and D.S. Bradshaw. 1994. The influence of human disturbance on the location of great glue heron colonies in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Colonial Waterbirds 17:184-186. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope and Western Slope. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. Wershkul, D.F., E. McMahon, and M. Lieitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662. Will, P. 2008. Personal Communications, Area Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Wood, K. 2007. Personal Communications, Basalt District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Yeager, L.E. and L. Riordan. 1953. Effects of beetle-killed timber on range and wildlife in Colorado. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 18: 596-616. Yong, W., D. M. Finch. 1997. Population trends of migratory landbirds along the middle Rio Grand. Southwest. Nat. 42: 137–147. App. K-66 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 66 8 Appendix I: CDOW NDIS Habitat Definitions The following section defines the ungulate seasonal activity area definitions used by CDOW in their habitat mapping protocol. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of an elk population. PRODUCTION AREA: That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are Mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU). RESIDENT POPULATION: An area used year-round by a population of elk. Individuals could be found in any part of the area at any time of the year; the area cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges. It is most likely included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The winter of 1983-84 is a good example of a severe winter. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid- August. High quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance are characteristics of these areas to meet the high energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general preparation for the rigors of fall and winter. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall, or during a site specific period of summer as defined for each DAU. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range of a species where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. MULE DEER CONCENTRATION AREA: That part of the overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly higher densities than surrounding areas. These areas are typically occupied year round and are not necessarily associated with a specific season. Includes rough break country, riparian areas, small drainages, and large areas of irrigated cropland. HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists. App. K-67 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 67 MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a mule deer population. RESIDENT POPULATION: An area that provides year-round range for a population of mule deer. The resident mule deer use all of the area all year; it cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges although it may be included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. BLACK BEAR FALL CONCENTRATION: That portion of the overall range occupied from August 15 until September 30 for the purpose of ingesting large quantities of mast and berries to establish fat reserves for the winter hibernation period. HUMAN CONFLICT: That portion of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CDOW investigation, damage to persons or property (cabins, tents, vehicles, etc), and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a population of black bear. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: That portion of the overall range of the species where activity is greater than the surrounding overall range during that period from June 15 to August 15. App. K-68 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 68 9 Appendix II: Qualifications of Report Author The primary author for this report was Eric Petterson, Principal Ecologist at Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Mr. Petterson holds a Master of Science Degree in Rangeland Ecosystem Science and a Bachelors of Science Degree in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University. Mr. Petterson has 19 years of natural resource planning and management experience. He has authored numerous Biological Assessments and Evaluations for NEPA and Endangered Species Act compliance for both wildlife and plant species protection. He has produced management plans and impact analyses for federal, state, and private natural resource projects, and conducted many surveys for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species in Colorado. He has implemented a variety of vegetation monitoring and vegetation management projects, wetland delineations, and research-based projects for the USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State Parks, Summit County, Town of Breckenridge, Pitkin County Open Space & Trails, City of Aspen, Gunnison County, Town of New Castle and various private properties within Pitkin, Eagle, Grand, Garfield, Gunnison and Boulder Counties. Wildlife and vegetation management reports and compliance have been provided for entities such as Aspen Skiing Company, Vail Resorts, Sunlight Ski Company, Loveland Ski Area, ETC Canyon Pipeline, Noble Energy, SG Interests, Kennecott Utah Copper (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto), Western Area Power Administration, Holy Cross Electric and Mountain Parks Electric Assoc. Mr. Petterson has also been a consultant/contractor on post-fire vegetation management on the Hayman, Missionary Ridge, Burn Canyon, and Eldorado Canyon fires in Colorado, and the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico. RMES, Inc. has also provided wetland delineation and 404 permitting for compliance with the Clean Water Act for clients including natural gas development companies, Kennecott Utah Copper, developers, pipeline companies, and for wetland reclamation and habitat improvement projects. Mr. Petterson has managed Rocky Mountain Ecological Services since 2000, and previous to working with RMES, Inc., he was the District Wildlife Biologist and Fuels Planner for the Canyon Lakes Ranger District on the Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest. Mr. Petterson was with the USDA Forest Service for 10 years. App. K-69 Appendix L: Ditch Relocation Agreement App. L-2 App. L-3 App. L-4 App. L-5 App. L-6 App. L-7 App. L-8 App. L-9 App. L-10 App. L-11 App. L-12 App. L-13 App. L-14 App. L-15 App. L-16 App. L-17 App. L-18 App. L-19 App. L-20 App. L-21 App. L-22 App. L-23 App. L-24 App. L-25 App. L-26 App. L-27 App. L-28 App. L-29 App. L-30 App. L-31 App. L-32 App. L-33 App. L-34 App. L-35 App. L-36 App. L-37 App. L-38 App. L-39 App. L-40 App. L-41 App. L-42 App. L-43 App. L-44 Appendix M: Traffic Assessment Submitted by: Fehr & Peers 621 17th Street, Ste. 2301 Denver, CO 80293 (303) 296-4300 December, 2010 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT River Edge Colorado App. M-2 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 STUDY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ........................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 5. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC ............................................................................................ 17 5.1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 17 5.2 2018 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .................................................................... 17 5.3 2030 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .................................................................... 17 5.4 2018 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ................................................................................................ 21 5.5 2030 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ................................................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 6. ACCESS CODE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 7. CAPACITY AND LOS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 25 7.1 EXISTING CAPACITY AND LOS ..................................................................................................................... 25 7.2 2018 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS .................................................................................................... 26 7.3 2018 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC .............................................................................................. 28 7.4 2030 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS .............................................................................................................. 30 7.5 2030 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC .............................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 8. SIGNAL WARRANT AND PROGRESSION ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 33 8.1 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 33 8.2 PROGRESSION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 35 App. M-3 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT VICINITY .................................................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 2: SITE LAYOUT .......................................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 3: EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 4: ASSIGNED PROJECT TRIPS 2018 AND 2030 .......................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 5: ADJUSTED EXISTING COUNTS .............................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 6: 2018 BACKGROUND VOLUMES ........................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 7: 2030 BACKGROUND VOLUMES ............................................................................................................ 20 FIGURE 8: 2018 TOTAL TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 9: 2030 TOTAL TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................... 23 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ........................................................................ 7 TABLE 2. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ................................................................... 8 TABLE 3: TRIP RATES AND GENERATION TABLE ................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 4: EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS .................................................................................................. 25 TABLE 5: 2018 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 26 TABLE 6: MITIGATED 2018 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS ...................................................................................... 27 TABLE 7: 2018 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS .................................................................................. 28 TABLE 8: 2018 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT MITIGATED LOS RESULTS ............................................................... 29 TABLE 11: 2030 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS ................................................................................ 32 TABLE 13: PROGRESSION EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................... 34 App. M-4 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 iii APPENDICES Appendix A: Existing Traffic Counts Appendix B: Synchro Reports - Existing Appendix C: Synchro reports - Future Appendix D: Signal Warrant Analysis Appendix E: Progression Analysis App. M-5 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The River Edge Colorado development is located in Garfield County. It is west of State Highway (SH) 82 approximately six miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The project site encompasses approximately 160 acres. The development is planned to be mostly residential and is proposed to include 366 Residential units comprised of single family homes plus a neighborhood center and a water treatment and maintenance facility. Transportation impacts on SH 82 were assessed for the years 2018 and 2030 with and without the development. Analysis was conducted based upon CDOT criteria and the existing roadway category. Analysis included intersection Level of Service (LOS), signal warrant analysis, and signal progression analysis. Three intersections were analyzed during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The intersections included: SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road SH 82 at Marand Road SH 82 at Spring Valley Road Spring Valley Road is the closest signalized intersection to the proposed development and is north of the development. 2018 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.11 into 2018. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 - Re-timing improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS operations during the peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 – The westbound right turn should be separated Although Cattle Creek Road and Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersections, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal without the project. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 2030 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.31 into 2030. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 – The eastbound and westbound turn movements should be separated from the through movements. This mitigation will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. App. M-6 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 2 Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 – This intersection will need to be signalized in 2030 due to background growth. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be met in the AM and PM peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS C or better during all peak hours. Although Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersection, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 2018 Plus Project All River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 2018. The following mitigation efforts will be needed with the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 - A signal will be needed at Cattle Creek Road and SH 82 upon buildout. With a signal at Cattle Creek Road, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS B or better during all peak hours. The westbound right turn will not need to be separated if a signal is present. The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. Peak hour signal warrants were conducted for the intersection of Cattle Creek Road at SH 82. Cattle Creek Road is expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 2018 with the project. 2030 Plus Project Similar to 2018 all River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 2030. The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. No additional mitigation efforts are recommended. Highway Access Requirements SH 82 is currently a Category E-X roadway. According to the Access Code, direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. The following requirements will be necessary to gain improved access: The spacing of Cattle Creek Road is such that a signal will be appropriate based upon the approximate 1 mile spacing to Spring Valley Road. Auxiliary left turn lanes are required at Cattle Creek Road. The transition taper length will be included with the required storage and deceleration length. A right turn deceleration lane with taper is required for southbound traffic turning onto Cattle Creek Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements To accommodate recreational bicycle activity in the area, a bicycle connection to the RFTA trail near the main entrance should be requested and bicycle traffic internal to the site be considered in the design. Adequate facilities are recommended within the development to accommodate pedestrian traffic throughout the development and to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings at SH 82. App. M-7 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 3 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The River Edge Colorado development is located in Garfield County. It is west of State Highway (SH) 82 approximately six miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The project site encompasses approximately 160 acres. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) runs along the east edge of the property, somewhat parallel to SH 82. The Roaring Fork River runs along the west side of the property. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity. Current access to the site exists on SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road. The development is planned to be residential in and is proposed to include 366 Residential units comprised of single family homes plus a neighborhood center and a water treatment and maintenance facility. Figure 2 shows the internal roadway layout and general site layout. 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES This report provides an assessment of potential traffic impacts to SH 82 associated with the development of the River Edge Colorado project. It includes an assessment of traffic operations along three intersections along SH 82. The study intersections included are as follows: SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road SH 82 at Marand Road SH 82 at Spring Valley Road App. M-8 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 4 Figure 1: Project Vicinity App. M-9 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 5 Figure 2: Site Layout App. M-10 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 6 1.3 STUDY CONDITIONS This traffic impact analysis has been compiled in order to determine what impacts the proposed development will have on the infrastructure system. The AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and Saturday peak hour were included in the study to provide an evaluation of the potential impact of the development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour commuter traffic as well as the weekend peak. The following three conditions were analyzed in this study with the corresponding volumes and network configurations as indicated. These study conditions are consistent with CDOTs Traffic Impact Study guidelines. Existing Conditions Analysis of the existing conditions in the study area were based on turning movement volumes collected in May 2010 and the existing roadway, intersection geometry, and traffic control as observed in the field. The counts were adjusted to reflect summer conditions. Analysis included existing summer peak season, peak hour traffic operations, and an assessment of intersection delay and level of service performance. The existing conditions provide a baseline for the future analysis. 2018 Background Conditions Analysis of the 2018 background traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of background traffic to the study intersections. The analysis of this condition represents volumes associated with traffic growth in the region based upon CDOTs growth rates. 2030 Background Conditions Analysis of the 2030 background traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of background traffic to the study intersections. The analysis of this condition represents volumes associated with traffic growth in the region based upon CDOTs growth rates. 2018 Background Plus Project Conditions Analysis of the 2018 background traffic plus project traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of the project in 2018. This includes full build out of the development. The volumes include the existing counts with the background growth rate applied to year 2018 along SH 82, combined with the site- generated trips for all land uses. Project access to SH 82 is via one intersection located at Cattle Creek Road for 2018. 2030 Background Plus Project Conditions Analysis of the 2030 background traffic plus project traffic was conducted to evaluate the impact of the project in 2030. The volumes include the existing counts with the background growth rate applied to year 2030 along SH 82, combined with the site-generated trips for all land uses. Project access to SH 82 is via one intersection located at Cattle Creek Road for 2030. App. M-11 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 7 1.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHOD The traffic operations analysis addressed unsignalized and signalized intersection operations using the procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000 for the weekday AM and PM peak hour and weekend peak hour traffic operations. Study intersection operations were evaluated using level of service calculations as analyzed in the Synchro software version 7. Level of Service Criteria To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network and corresponding intersections, transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS). LOS is a description of an intersection’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). Signalized Intersections At signalized intersections, traffic conditions were evaluated using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. The operation analysis uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the intersection’s volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. For signalized intersections the HCM defines the level of service as the average delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections. Table 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Stopped Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description A < 10 Very low delay. Most vehicles do not stop. B 10.1 to 20 Generally good progression of vehicles. Slight delays. C 20.1 to 35 Fair progression. Increased number of stopped vehicles. D 35.1 to 55 Noticeable congestion. Large portion of vehicles stopped. E 55.1 to 80 Poor progression. High delays and frequent cycle failure. F > 80 Oversaturation. Forced flow. Extensive queuing. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). App. M-12 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 8 Unsignalized Intersections For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for unsignalized intersections was utilized. With this methodology, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled movement. The method incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For all-way stop- controlled intersections the HCM defines the level of service as the average delay per vehicle for the overall intersection. For side street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is reported for the worst approach. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description a < 10 Little or no conflicting traffic for minor street approach. b 10.1 to 15 Minor street approach begins to notice absence of available gaps. c 15.1 to 25 Minor street approach begins experiencing delay for available gaps. d 25.1 to 35 Minor street approach experiences queuing due to a reduction in available gaps. e 35.1 to 50 Extensive minor street queuing due to insufficient gaps. f > 50 Insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow minor street traffic demand to cross safely through a major traffic stream. Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Significance Criteria Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service: Garfield County Traffic Study guidelines indicate that all county roads must maintain an overall Level of Service C while intersections should operate at an overall Level of Service D or better. Colorado Department of Transportation minimum design criteria indicate intersections operate at an overall Level of Service D or better. App. M-13 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 9 Significant Impact Criteria: A project typically is considered to have a significant impact at a study intersection when one of the following criteria is satisfied: For Signalized Intersections: When the added project traffic causes an intersection to exceed the Level of Service standard; or when the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) exceeds the established Level of Service standards, and the project traffic causes more than a 20 percent increase in the intersection delay. For Unsignalized Intersections: Queuing of traffic to adjacent intersections would create impeded traffic flows; or excessive delays are determined to create potential safety problems. It is typical for an unsignalized intersection to notice delay higher than 35 seconds (LOS e) for a single approach without meeting signal warrants. Therefore LOS e or better for a single movement at an unsignalized intersection is typically tolerated. App. M-14 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 10 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS An assessment of the existing transportation system surrounding the project site was conducted. This provides a clear picture of the system today and sets a baseline for future analysis. 2.1 ROADWAY SYSTEM SH 82 is a regional highway connecting Interstate 70 (I-70) to the north with Highway 24 to the south and east. The speed limit along the highway varies from 55 to 65 miles per hour. Within the vicinity of the River Edge Colorado Development, the roadway is a median divided rural highway with two lanes in each direction. Auxiliary turn lanes exist at full movement intersections as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes. SH 82 is classified as an Expressway, Category E-X by CDOT. North of the site is the intersection of Spring Valley Road. The intersection is signalized at SH 82. On the west side of the intersection is a small park–n-ride lot for the transit stop that is located at the intersection. East of the intersection are industrial and commercial uses. Marand Road is located north of the site and is a local 2 lane access roadway on the east side of the highway, providing access to industrial and commercial uses. Access exists to a former restaurant site which is currently vacant on the west side of the highway directly across from Marand Road. The access is unsignalized and full movement. Cattle Creek Road intersects CR 110 and the frontage road prior to intersecting SH 82 on the east side of Highway 82. Commercial uses exist along CR 110. West of SH 82, the land is currently undeveloped. The intersection is a full movement access. 2.2 TRANSIT, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Transit Facilities The Roaring Fork Transit Authority currently operates along SH 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. Valley fare buses operate as Local “L” and Express “X” buses. Both L and X busses stop at the intersection of Spring Valley Road and SH 82 on the near side of the intersection. Bus Shelter at Spring Valley Road SH82 at Marand Road, Looking North App. M-15 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The Rio Grande Trail is a multi-use trail system that travels from I-70 to the north to Aspen and runs parallel to SH 82 on the west side of the highway in the vicinity of the site. This trail was built within the former rail corridor of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) Aspen Branch. In 1997, the rail corridor and track were purchased using a combination of funding from local governments, Great Outdoors Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. This purchase presented an opportunity to explore transportation alternatives to SH 82 congestion and the challenge of creating recreation connectivity in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Roaring Fork Transit Authority manages and maintains the Rio Grande Trail with the Roaring Fork Valley. Popular recreational bicycle routes in the area include loops on Cattle Creek Road and Spring Valley Road east of Highway 82 to the RFTA trail. The photo to the right shows the “mapmyride” routes in the area. The roadways in the area have limited to no sidewalks. App. M-16 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 12 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The vehicle trips associated with the River Edge Colorado project were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Eighth Edition. Trip generation forecasts were developed for full build- out of the property. The ITE method consists of choosing an appropriate independent variable for each land use for a particular time of day. The value of the independent variable is multiplied by a weighted average rate or inserted into a regression equation to calculate the trips generated by each land use. The ITE land uses planned for development are Single Family Housing (210) and Recreation Center (495) Table 3 shows the proposed project trip generation. The notes following the table indicate the regression equation used to generate trips. App. M-17 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 13 TABLE 3: TRIP RATES AND GENERATION TABLE Land Use Size Trip Generation Rates [a] Estimated Trip Generation ITE Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Code Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out Rate In Out In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Housing 366 du 210 [b] [b] 25% 75% [b] 63% 37% [b] 53% 47% 3,430 66 200 266 213 125 338 178 158 335 Recreation Center 6.0 ksf 495 22.80 1.62 61% 39% 1.45 37% 63% 1.07 54% 46% 137 6 4 10 3 6 9 3 3 6 TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS 3,567 72 204 276 216 131 347 181 161 341 Notes: [a] Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [b] ITE 210 trip generation equations used rather than linear trip generation rate: Daily: Ln(T) = 0.92 * Ln(x) + 2.71, where T = trips, x = area in ksf AM Peak Hour: T = 0.70 * x + 9.74, where T = trips, x = area in ksf PM Peak Hour: LN(T) = 0.90 *LN(x) + 0.51, where T = trips, x = area in ksf Sat Peak Hour: T = 0.89 *x + 9.56, where T = trips, x = area in ksf The Maintenance Facility is not expected to generate peak hour trips that will effect SH 82 and has not been included App. M-18 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 14 CHAPTER 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution was based upon existing traffic patterns. In general, 65% of the traffic along SH 82 travels south towards Carbondale in the AM peak, leaving 35% to travel north. In the evening the traffic shifts so that 35% travels south and 65% travels north. Saturday peak hour traffic is more evenly split between northbound and southbound traffic at 50% to 50%. Figure 3 shows the external trip distribution. Traffic was assigned based upon: One access point onto SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in 2018 One access point onto SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in 2030 Figure 4 shows the project trips as assigned. App. M-19 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 15 Figure 3: External Trip Distribution App. M-20 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 16 Figure 4: Assigned Project Trips 2018 and 2030 App. M-21 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 17 CHAPTER 5. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC 5.1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Existing Traffic counts were conducted in May 2010 by All Traffic Data for AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. These counts were adjusted to reflect summer peak traffic. According to CDOT records, May traffic is 0.8 times the average annual traffic. Summer peaks are noticed in July along SH 82 and are 1.25 of the average annual traffic. The counts were factored up by 1.56 to reflect the summer peak. Figure 5 shows the adjusted, existing counts along SH 82 and the intersection lane configuration. Appendix A contains the unadjusted traffic count data. 5.2 2018 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Background traffic projections were developed for year 2018. Background traffic is the traffic that is expected to travel along SH 82 irrespective of the development. Traffic volumes on SH 82 can be expected to increase in accordance with historical growth rates, and “background” traffic, without the development can be estimated using annualized rates of growth developed from the Colorado Department of Transportation 20-year growth factor for this segment of SH 82. Calculations based on the CDOT 20-year growth factor produced an eight-year composite growth factor (2010 to 2018) of 1.11. These volumes provide the baseline conditions for comparative purposes with the total traffic projections including the project. Figure 6 shows the projected 2018 background peak hour volumes at each of the study intersections. 5.3 2030 PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Background traffic projections were developed for year 2030. Background traffic is the traffic that is expected to travel along SH 82 irrespective of the development. Traffic volumes on SH 82 can be expected to increase in accordance with historical growth rates, and “background” traffic, without the development can be estimated using annualized rates of growth developed from the Colorado Department of Transportation 20-year growth factor for this segment of SH 82. The CDOT 20-year growth factor is 1.31. These volumes provide the baseline conditions for comparative purposes with the total traffic projections including the project. Figure 7 shows the projected 2030 background peak hour volumes at each of the study intersections. App. M-22 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 18 Figure 5: Adjusted Existing Counts App. M-23 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 19 Figure 6: 2018 Background Volumes App. M-24 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 20 Figure 7: 2030 Background Volumes App. M-25 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 21 5.4 2018 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC The total site generated traffic will be a combination of background traffic and project traffic generated from the new development. Figure 8 show the total traffic along SH 82 for 2018 conditions plus project. 5.5 2030 BACKGOUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC The total site generated traffic will be a combination of background traffic and project traffic generated from the new development. Figure 9 show the total traffic along SH 82 for 2030 conditions plus project. App. M-26 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 22 Figure 8: 2018 Total Traffic App. M-27 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 23 Figure 9: 2030 Total Traffic App. M-28 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 24 CHAPTER 6. ACCESS CODE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENTS According to the State Highway Access Code Direct access from a subdivision to the highway shall be permitted only if the proposed access meets the purposes and requirements of the Code. Local traffic from a subdivision abutting a state highway shall be served by an internal street system of adequate capacity, intersecting and connecting with state highways in a manner that is safe as well as consistent with the assigned access category (Code Section Three) and design requirements (Code Section Four). SH 82 is designated as an Expressway (Category E-X). This category is appropriate for use on highways that have the capacity for high speed and relatively high traffic volumes in an efficient and safe manner. They provide for interstate, interregional, intra- regional, and intercity travel needs and to a lesser degree, some intracity travel needs. Direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. Typical spacing of intersecting streets, roads and highways shall be planned on intervals of one mile and normally based upon section lines where appropriate. One-half mile spacing of public ways may be permitted to the highway only when no reasonable alternative access to the general street system exists. No access to private property may be permitted unless reasonable access cannot be obtained from the general street system. When private access is permitted, left turns may be allowed if in the opinion of the department such left turns can be reasonably accomplished and it is not a divided highway. When direct private access is permitted, appropriate terms and conditions shall be included in the permit to achieve the following criteria; a) the access should be closed when other reasonable access to a lower functional street, road or highway is reasonably available, b) the access permit should specify under what circumstances the closure may be required, and c) if known, the future access location and the date the closure may occur. The following lists the auxiliary requirements based upon the Expressway (Category E-X) requirements: A left turn deceleration lane will be required for Cattle Creek Road left turn pocket. The transition taper length will be included within the required deceleration length. A right turn lane with deceleration and taper lengths will be required for Cattle Creek Road for the southbound right turning traffic. Signal progression analysis must indicate a 40 percent efficiency or better or shall not degrade the existing progression. (See Chapter 8) Signals at intersections with major cross streets or roads of equal importance may be programmed to optimize traffic on both streets equally. Cross-streets of lesser importance need not be optimized equally. App. M-29 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 25 CHAPTER 7. CAPACITY AND LOS ANALYSIS 7.1 EXISTING CAPACITY AND LOS Table 4 provides the results of the existing capacity analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. TABLE 4: EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 23 C P.M. 41 D SAT 18 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 22 c P.M. 51 f SAT 23 c 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 41 e P.M. >100 f SAT 23 c Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 4, the intersections currently operate at acceptable levels during peak hours except the westbound side street stopped approaches at Marand Road and at Cattle Creek Road in the PM peak hours. Peak hour signal warrants are not expected to be met at either intersection. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. Appendix B provides the LOS calculations for the existing conditions analysis. App. M-30 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 26 7.2 2018 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS Table 5 provides the results of the 2018 capacity analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours without the development assuming the same geometry as existing conditions. TABLE 5: 2018 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 27 C P.M. 69 E SAT 19 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 26 d P.M. 82 f SAT 27 d 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 71 f P.M. >100 f SAT 29 d Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 5, Marand Road continues to notice significant side street delay during the PM peak hour. Cattle Creek Road notices significant side street delay during AM and PM peak hours. Marand Road at SH 82 is not expected to meet peak hour warrants. Partial mitigation at Cattle Creek Road includes separating the westbound left turn and right turn movements. The AM peak hour warrant is expected to be met, however the PM peak hour warrant is not expected to be met, full signal warrants are not expected to be met and delay will continue to be noticed. The signalized intersection of Spring Valley Road notices overall delay in the PM peak. Mitigation at this intersection would require adjustment of the signal timing at the intersection. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. App. M-31 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 27 Table 6 shows the operational improvements with the noted mitigation above for Cattle Creek Road and Spring Valley Road. TABLE 6: MITIGATED 2018 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 18 B P.M. 46 D SAT 17 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 26 d P.M. 82 f SAT 27 d 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 44 e P.M. >100 f SAT 23 c Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 6, delay will continue to be noticed for the side street stop controlled intersections in the PM peak hour. App. M-32 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 28 7.3 2018 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC As mentioned previously, all project traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road. Table 7 provides the results of the 2018 plus project capacity analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The mitigation previously mentioned for Spring Valley Road was assumed to be in place. TABLE 7: 2018 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 28 C P.M. 51 D SAT 19 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 28 d P.M. 99 f SAT 30 d 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. >100 f P.M. >100 f SAT 61 f Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 7, the intersection of Marand Road continues to notice significant delay during the PM peak hour due to the westbound approach delay. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 also continues to notice significant delay. Analysis assumes geometry based upon existing conditions To mitigate the excessive delay at Cattle Creek Road, a signal is needed. A signal at this intersection is expected to meet AM and PM peak hour warrants. A signal warrant and progression analysis was completed and is described in Chapter 8. The Marand Road intersection is not expected to meet peak hour warrants in 2018. Delay at this intersection will continue to be noticed. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. App. M-33 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 29 Table 8 provides the mitigated results. TABLE 8: 2018 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT MITIGATED LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 28 C P.M. 51 D SAT 18 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 28 d P.M. 99 f SAT 30 d 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 13 B P.M. 13 B SAT 7 A Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 8, the suggested mitigation alleviates delay at the intersection of SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road. App. M-34 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 30 7.4 2030 BACKGROUND CAPACITY AND LOS Build out of the River Edge Colorado development is expected to be completed around 2018. However, in the event the project is not completed or in place by 2030, an analysis of background traffic in 2030 was completed. TABLE 9: 2030 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 23 C P.M. 95 F SAT 20 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 38 e P.M. >100 f SAT 37 e 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. >100 f P.M. >100 f SAT 32 d Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 9, Spring Valley Road intersection notices significant delay during the PM peak hour. Marand Road continues to notice significant side street delay during the PM peak hour. Cattle Creek Road notices significant side street delay during AM and PM peak hours. In order to mitigate the delay at Spring Valley Road, the westbound and eastbound turning movements need to be separated from the through movements. Marand Road at SH 82 is not expected to meet peak hour warrants. Mitigation at Cattle Creek Road includes signalizing the intersection. Both AM and PM peak hour warrants are expected to be met. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. App. M-35 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 31 TABLE 10: MITIGATED 2030 BACKGROUND LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 23 C P.M. 43 D SAT 20 B 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 38 e P.M. >100 f SAT 37 e 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 12 B P.M. 22 C SAT 5 A Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 10, the suggested mitigation alleviates delay for the intersections of SH 82 at Spring Valley Road and SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road. App. M-36 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 32 7.5 2030 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC All project traffic will access SH 82 to Cattle Creek Road. Table 11 provides the results of the 2030 plus project analysis for the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours. The background mitigation for Spring Valley Road and Cattle Creek Road were assumed to be in place. TABLE 11: 2030 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT LOS RESULTS No. Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing Delay LOS 1. SH 82 & SPRING VALLEY ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 24 C P.M. 43 D SAT 21 C 2. SH 82 & MARAND ROAD SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL A.M. 42 e P.M. >100 f SAT 43 e 3. SH 82 & CATTLE CREEK ROAD SIGNAL A.M. 19 B P.M. 32 C SAT 7 A Notes: 1 The Signalized intersection LOS and delay results are reported for the overall intersection. The unsignalized results are reported for the worst case approach. 2 Delay is reported as the average delay per vehicle in seconds 3 Level of Service for Signalized intersections are indicated in uppercase. Lower case is used for stop controlled intersections. As shown in Table 11, Marand Road westbound side street stop control approach continues to notice delay during all peak hours, however signal warrants are not expected to be met. No additional mitigation is recommended. Refer to Chapter 8 for further discussion regarding signal warrant analysis. App. M-37 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 33 CHAPTER 8. SIGNAL WARRANT AND PROGRESSION ANALYSIS 8.1 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS A signal warrant analysis was performed on the two side-street stop-controlled intersections that operated with high levels of delay: Marand Road/ SH 82 and Cattle Creek Road/ SH 82. The warrants identified in the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used for the analysis. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant, the Four-hour Volume Warrant, and other relevant factors were considered in evaluating the addition of signal operations at these intersections. Appendix D contains the signal warrant analysis worksheets. Peak Hour Warrant The Peak Hour Warrant, which compares the volumes at an intersection during the peak hour of operation to the warrant requirements for the major street and minor street traffic, was evaluated for the scenario in the 2018 and 2030 plus project conditions. The rural warrants were used for both intersections. 2018 Cattle Creek Road/ SH 82 was considered for signalization as a mitigation measure. Cattle Creek Road is expected to meet the AM peak hour warrants without the project. Both AM and PM peak hour warrants are expected to be met with the project in 2018. Marand Road is not expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 2018. If project build-out happens prior to 2018, signal warrants will most likely be met by that time. 2030 Peak hour warrants were run in 2030 without the project in the case the project was not built. Without the project, Cattle Creek Road meets both AM and PM peak hour warrants. Marand Road is not expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 2030 with or without the project. App. M-38 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 34 8.2 PROGRESSION ANALYSIS A signal progression analysis was completed to ensure SH 82 will operate with the appropriate efficiently based upon the existing category of the highway. CDOT requires an efficiency of at least 40. Efficiency represents the proportion of all green time that is in progression along a corridor. As a guideline, efficiency below 12% is considered poor, efficiency between 13% to 24% is considered fair, and efficiency between 25 to 36% is good. Great progression is anything over 36%. Table 12 provides the 90th percentile arterial bandwidths on SH 82 the AM and PM peak hours for horizon year 2018 and 2030 plus project. TABLE 12: PROGRESSION EFFICIENCY Scenario Peak Hour Cycle Length (Seconds) 90th Percentile Bandwidth (%) 2018 A.M. 100 49 P.M. 120 59 2030 A.M. 100 53 P.M. 120 52 As shown in Table 12, both 2018 and 2030 scenarios with the project meet the minimum 40% efficiency for the highway. Appendix E provides the Time – Space Diagrams of the progression analysis completed with Synchro 7. App. M-39 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 35 CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2018 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.11 into 2018. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 - Re-timing improvements in order to maintain acceptable LOS operations during the peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 – The westbound right turn should be separated Although Cattle Creek Road and Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersections, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal without the project. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 2030 Background Traffic volumes along State Highway 82 are expected to increase by a compounded growth factor of 1.31 into 2030. The following mitigation efforts will be needed without the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Spring Valley Road at SH 82 – The eastbound and westbound turn movements should be separated from the through movements. This mitigation will allow for LOS D or better during all peak hours. Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 – This intersection will need to be signalized in 2030 due to background growth. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be met in the AM and PM peak hours. This improvement will allow for LOS C or better during all peak hours. Although Marand Road side-street approaches notice delay at the stop controlled intersection, it is not expected that the side street volumes will be high enough to warrant a signal. The suggested mitigation efforts are not necessitated by the project. 2018 Plus Project All River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 2018. The following mitigation efforts will be needed with the project in order to maintain efficient operations along the corridor: Cattle Creek Road at SH 82 - A signal will be needed at Cattle Creek Road and SH 82 upon buildout. With a signal at Cattle Creek Road, the intersection is shown to operate at a LOS B or better during all peak hours. The westbound right turn will not need to be separated if a signal is present. App. M-40 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 36 The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. Peak hour signal warrants were conducted for the intersection of Cattle Creek Road at SH 82. Cattle Creek Road is expected to meet the peak hour warrants in 2018 with the project. 2030 Plus Project Similar to 2018 all River Edge Colorado development traffic will access SH 82 at Cattle Creek Road in the year 2030. The mitigation efforts are necessitated by the project traffic. The project does not significantly impact Marand Road at SH 82 or Spring Valley Road at SH 82. No additional mitigation efforts are recommended. Highway Access Requirements SH 82 is currently a Category E-X roadway. According to the Access Code, direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. The following requirements will be necessary to gain improved access: The spacing of Cattle Creek Road is such that a signal will be appropriate based upon the approximate 1 mile spacing to Spring Valley Road. Auxiliary left turn lanes are required at Cattle Creek Road. The transition taper length will be included with the required storage and deceleration length. A right turn deceleration lane with taper is required for southbound traffic turning onto Cattle Creek Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements To accommodate recreational bicycle activity in the area, a bicycle connection to the RFTA trail near the main entrance should be requested and bicycle traffic internal to the site be considered in the design. Adequate facilities are recommended within the development to accommodate pedestrian traffic throughout the development and to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings at SH 82. App. M-41 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 APPENDIX A: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS App. M-42 File Name : AM_16280 SH82&CR113 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 4 288 0 0 12 0 10 0 07510 0 0000399 07:15 AM 6 276 0 0 14 0 4 0 099600000405 07:30 AM 17 256 0 0 21 0 13 0 0 121 10 0 0000438 07:45 AM 7 227 0 0 25 0 11 0 0121400000395 Total 34 1047 0 0 72 0 38 0 0 416 30 0 0 0 0 0 1637 08:00 AM 8 235 0 0 10 0 15 0 0125900000402 08:15 AM 9 213 0 0 80600146600000388 08:30 AM 3 199 0 0 13 0 10 0 0137900000371 08:45 AM 8 192 0 0 14 0 12 0 0150900000385 Total 28 839 0 0 45 0 43 0 0 558 33 0 0 0 0 0 1546 Grand Total 62 1886 0 0 117 0 81 0 0 974 63 0 00003183 Apprch %3.2 96.8 0 0 59.1 0 40.9 0 0 93.9 6.1 0 0000 Total %1.9 59.3 0 0 3.7 0 2.5 0 0 30.6 2 0 0000 Class 1 62 1839 0 0 117 0 66 0 0 946 63 0 0 0 0 0 3093 % Class 1 100 97.5 0 0 100 0 81.5 0 0 97.1 100 0 000097.2 TRUCKS 0 47 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 % TRUCKS 02.5 0 0 0018.5002.90000002.8 App. M-43 File Name : AM_16280 SH82&CR113 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 6 276 0 0 282 14040180 99 6 0 105 0000 0405 07:30 AM 17 256 0 0 273 21 0 13 0 34 0 121 10 0 131 0000 0438 07:45 AM 7 227 0 0 234 25 0 11 0 36 0 121 4 0 125 0000 0395 08:00 AM 8 235 0 0 243 10 0 15 0 25 0 125 9 0 134 0000 0402 Total Volume 38 994 0 0 1032 70 0 43 0 113 0 466 29 0 495 0 0 0 0 0 1640 % App. Total 3.7 96.3 0 0 61.9 0 38.1 0 0 94.1 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .559 .900 .000 .000 .915 .700 .000 .717 .000 .785 .000 .932 .725 .000 .924 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .936 SH82 CR113 CR113 SH82 Rght 0 Thru 994 Left 38 Peds 0 InOut Total 509 1032 1541 Rght43 Thru0 Left70 Peds0 OutTotalIn67 113 180 Left 0 Thru 466 Rght 29 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 1064 495 1559 Left0 Thru0 Rght0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Class 1 TRUCKS Peak Hour Data North App. M-44 File Name : PM_16280 SH82&CR113 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 3 123 0 0 10 1 13 0 0 242 19 0 0000411 04:15 PM 5 134 0 0 812000 276 11 0 0000455 04:30 PM 8 135 0 0 801800 309 15 0 0000493 04:45 PM 3 171 0 0 11 2 18 0 0 295 11 0 0000511 Total 19 563 0 0 37 4 69 0 0 1122 56 0 0 0 0 0 1870 05:00 PM 5 183 0 0 16 1 14 0 0 304 13 0 0000536 05:15 PM 5 151 0 0 721400313900000501 05:30 PM 6 146 0 0 911100 270 14 0 0000457 05:45 PM 7 125 0 0 911300 242 10 0 0000407 Total 23 605 0 0 41 5 52 0 0 1129 46 0 0 0 0 0 1901 Grand Total 42 1168 0 0 78 9 121 0 0 2251 102 0 00003771 Apprch %3.5 96.5 0 0 37.5 4.3 58.2 0 0 95.7 4.3 0 0000 Total %1.1 31 0 0 2.1 0.2 3.2 0 0 59.7 2.7 0 0000 Class 1 42 1132 0 0 78 0 121 0 0 2206 102 0 0 0 0 0 3681 % Class 1 100 96.9 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 98 100 0 000097.6 TRUCKS 0 36 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 % TRUCKS 03.1 0 0 0 100 0 0 020000002.4 App. M-45 File Name : PM_16280 SH82&CR113 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 8 135 0 0 143 80180260 309 15 0 324 0000 0493 04:45 PM 3 171 0 0 174 11 2 18 0 31 0 295 11 0 306 0000 0511 05:00 PM 5 183 0 0 188 16 1 14 0 31 0 304 13 0 317 0000 0536 05:15 PM 5 151 0 0 156 72140230 313 9 0 322 0000 0501 Total Volume 21 640 0 0 661 42 5 64 0 111 0 1221 48 0 1269 0 0 0 0 0 2041 % App. Total 3.2 96.8 0 0 37.8 4.5 57.7 0 0 96.2 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .656 .874 .000 .000 .879 .656 .625 .889 .000 .895 .000 .975 .800 .000 .979 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .952 SH82 CR113 CR113 SH82 Rght 0 Thru 640 Left 21 Peds 0 InOut Total 1285 661 1946 Rght64 Thru5 Left42 Peds0 OutTotalIn69 111 180 Left 0 Thru 1221 Rght 48 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 682 1269 1951 Left0 Thru0 Rght0 Peds0 TotalOutIn5 0 5 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 TRUCKS Peak Hour Data North App. M-46 File Name : NOON_16281 SH82&CR113 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/22/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 11:00 AM 4 128 0 0 601000160600000314 11:15 AM 3 133 0 0 50800165300000317 11:30 AM 9 121 0 0 30800190900000340 11:45 AM 5 133 0 0 12 0 11 0 0163600000330 Total 21 515 0 0 26 0 37 0 0 678 24 0 0 0 0 0 1301 12:00 PM 1 148 0 0 60600186500000352 12:15 PM 5 149 0 0 501200 158 11 0 0000340 12:30 PM 0 134 0 0 401000171700000326 12:45 PM 3 140 0 0 501200148500000313 Total 9 571 0 0 20 0 40 0 0 663 28 0 0 0 0 0 1331 Grand Total 30 1086 0 0 46 0 77 0 0 1341 52 0 00002632 Apprch %2.7 97.3 0 0 37.4 0 62.6 0 0 96.3 3.7 0 0000 Total %1.1 41.3 0 0 1.7 0 2.9 0 0 50.9 2 0 0000 Class 1 30 1073 0 0 46 0 72 0 0 1322 52 0 0 0 0 0 2595 % Class 1 100 98.8 0 0 100 0 93.5 0 0 98.6 100 0 000098.6 TRUCKS 0 13 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 % TRUCKS 01.2 0 0 006.5001.40000001.4 App. M-47 File Name : NOON_16281 SH82&CR113 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/22/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound CR113 Westbound SH82 Northbound CR113 Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 9 121 0 0 130 3080110 190 9 0 199 0000 0340 11:45 AM 5 133 0 0 138 12 0 11 0 23 0 163 6 0 169 0000 0330 12:00 PM 1 148 0 0 149 6060120 186 5 0 191 0000 0352 12:15 PM 5 149 0 0 154 50120170 158 11 0 169 0000 0340 Total Volume 20 551 0 0 571 26 0 37 0 63 0 697 31 0 728 0 0 0 0 0 1362 % App. Total 3.5 96.5 0 0 41.3 0 58.7 0 0 95.7 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .556 .924 .000 .000 .927 .542 .000 .771 .000 .685 .000 .917 .705 .000 .915 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .967 SH82 CR113 CR113 SH82 Rght 0 Thru 551 Left 20 Peds 0 InOut Total 734 571 1305 Rght37 Thru0 Left26 Peds0 OutTotalIn51 63 114 Left 0 Thru 697 Rght 31 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 577 728 1305 Left0 Thru0 Rght0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 11:30 AM Class 1 TRUCKS Peak Hour Data North App. M-48 File Name : AM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 286 0 0 12 0 4 0 07510 0 0000389 07:15 AM 2 279 0 0 11 0 0 0 0102500000399 07:30 AM 1 249 0 0 90400126500000394 07:45 AM 1 242 0 0 10 0 0 0 0124400000381 Total 6 1056 0 0 42 0 8 0 0 427 24 0 0 0 0 0 1563 08:00 AM 4 232 0 0 80200 130 11 0 0000387 08:15 AM 4 218 0 0 60200151800000389 08:30 AM 1 191 0 0 40300134400000337 08:45 AM 4 198 0 0 11 0 3 0 0156900000381 Total 13 839 0 0 29 0 10 0 0 571 32 0 0 0 0 0 1494 Grand Total 19 1895 0 0 71 0 18 0 0 998 56 0 00003057 Apprch %199 0 079.8 0 20.2 0 0 94.7 5.3 0 0000 Total %0.6 62 0 0 2.3 0 0.6 0 0 32.6 1.8 0 0000 Class 1 19 1837 0 0 71 0 18 0 0 960 56 0 0 0 0 0 2961 % Class 1 100 96.9 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 96.2 100 0 000096.9 TRUCKS 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 % TRUCKS 03.1 0 0 000003.80000003.1 SH82 MARAND RD MARAND RD SH82 Rght 0 0 0 Thru 1837 58 1895 Left 19 0 19 Peds 0 0 0 InOut Total 978 1856 2834 38 58 96 1016 2930 1914 Rght18 0 18 Thru0 0 0 Left71 0 71 Peds0 0 0 OutTotalIn75 89 164 0 0 0 75 164 89 Left 0 0 0 Thru 960 38 998 Rght 56 0 56 Peds 0 0 0 Out TotalIn 1908 1016 2924 58 38 96 1966 3020 1054 Left0 0 0 Thru0 0 0 Rght0 0 0 Peds0 0 0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5/20/2010 07:00 AM 5/20/2010 08:45 AM Class 1 TRUCKS North App. M-49 File Name : AM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 2 286 0 0 288 120401607510 0 85 0000 0389 07:15 AM 2 279 0 0 281 11000110 102 5 0 107 0000 0399 07:30 AM 1 249 0 0 250 9040130 126 5 0 131 0000 0394 07:45 AM 1 242 0 0 243 10000100 124 4 0 128 0000 0381 Total Volume 6 1056 0 0 1062 42 0 8 0 50 0 427 24 0 451 0 0 0 0 0 1563 % App. Total 0.6 99.4 0 0 84 0 16 0 0 94.7 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .750 .923 .000 .000 .922 .875 .000 .500 .000 .781 .000 .847 .600 .000 .861 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .979 SH82 MARAND RD MARAND RD SH82 Rght 0 Thru 1056 Left 6 Peds 0 InOut Total 435 1062 1497 Rght8 Thru0 Left42 Peds0 OutTotalIn30 50 80 Left 0 Thru 427 Rght 24 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 1098 451 1549 Left0 Thru0 Rght0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Class 1 TRUCKS Peak Hour Data North App. M-50 File Name : PM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCK SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 5 132 0 0 30800251600000405 04:15 PM 0 126 0 0 20400 276 17 0 0000425 04:30 PM 0 138 0 0 60700314600000471 04:45 PM 0 176 0 0 40700305900000501 Total 5 572 0 0 15 0 26 0 0 1146 38 0 0 0 0 0 1802 05:00 PM 1 180 0 0 40800 301 13 0 0000507 05:15 PM 2 154 0 0 301000323800000500 05:30 PM 0 152 0 0 20200 279 13 0 0000448 05:45 PM 0 130 0 0 40000250700000391 Total 3 616 0 0 13 0 20 0 0 1153 41 0 0 0 0 0 1846 Grand Total 8 1188 0 0 28 0 46 0 0 2299 79 0 00003648 Apprch %0.7 99.3 0 0 37.8 0 62.2 0 0 96.7 3.3 0 0000 Total %0.2 32.6 0 0 0.8 0 1.3 0 0632.2 0 0000 Class 1 8 1137 0 0 28 0 46 0 0 2243 79 0 0 0 0 0 3541 % Class 1 100 95.7 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 97.6 100 0 000097.1 TRUCK 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 % TRUCK 04.3 0 0 000002.40000002.9 SH82 MARAND RD MARAND RD SH82 Rght 0 0 0 Thru 1137 51 1188 Left 8 0 8 Peds 0 0 0 InOut Total 2289 1145 3434 56 51 107 2345 3541 1196 Rght46 0 46 Thru0 0 0 Left28 0 28 Peds0 0 0 OutTotalIn87 74 161 0 0 0 87 161 74 Left 0 0 0 Thru 2243 56 2299 Rght 79 0 79 Peds 0 0 0 Out TotalIn 1165 2322 3487 51 56 107 1216 3594 2378 Left0 0 0 Thru0 0 0 Rght0 0 0 Peds0 0 0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5/20/2010 04:00 PM 5/20/2010 05:45 PM Class 1 TRUCK North App. M-51 File Name : PM_16283 SH82&MARAND Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 138 0 0 138 6070130 314 6 0 320 0000 0471 04:45 PM 0 176 0 0 176 4070110 305 9 0 314 0000 0501 05:00 PM 1 180 0 0 181 4080120 301 13 0 314 0000 0507 05:15 PM 2 154 0 0 156 30100130 323 8 0 331 0000 0500 Total Volume 3 648 0 0 651 17 0 32 0 49 0 1243 36 0 1279 0 0 0 0 0 1979 % App. Total 0.5 99.5 0 0 34.7 0 65.3 0 0 97.2 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .375 .900 .000 .000 .899 .708 .000 .800 .000 .942 .000 .962 .692 .000 .966 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .976 SH82 MARAND RD MARAND RD SH82 Rght 0 Thru 648 Left 3 Peds 0 InOut Total 1275 651 1926 Rght32 Thru0 Left17 Peds0 OutTotalIn39 49 88 Left 0 Thru 1243 Rght 36 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 665 1279 1944 Left0 Thru0 Rght0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 TRUCK Peak Hour Data North App. M-52 File Name : NOON_16282 SH82&MARAND Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/22/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 - TRUCKS SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 11:00 AM 0 127 0 0 30200169400000305 11:15 AM 1 141 0 0 30000174500000324 11:30 AM 2 124 0 0 20100202700000338 11:45 AM 0 131 0 0 70100163300000305 Total 3 523 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 708 19 0 0 0 0 0 1272 12:00 PM 0 156 0 0 20400181200000345 12:15 PM 0 147 0 0 10300163100000315 12:30 PM 1 139 0 0 20100180500000328 12:45 PM 0 137 0 0 30100155700000303 Total 1 579 0 0 8 0 9 0 0 679 15 0 0 0 0 0 1291 Grand Total 4 1102 0 0 23 0 13 0 0 1387 34 0 00002563 Apprch %0.4 99.6 0 0 63.9 0 36.1 0 0 97.6 2.4 0 0000 Total %0.2 43 0 0 0.9 0 0.5 0 0 54.1 1.3 0 0000 Class 1 4 1078 0 0 23 0 13 0 0 1352 34 0 0 0 0 0 2504 % Class 1 100 97.8 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 97.5 100 0 000097.7 TRUCKS 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 % TRUCKS 02.2 0 0 000002.50000002.3 SH82 MARAND RD MARAND RD SH82 Rght 0 0 0 Thru 1078 24 1102 Left 4 0 4 Peds 0 0 0 InOut Total 1365 1082 2447 35 24 59 1400 2506 1106 Rght13 0 13 Thru0 0 0 Left23 0 23 Peds0 0 0 OutTotalIn38 36 74 0 0 0 38 74 36 Left 0 0 0 Thru 1352 35 1387 Rght 34 0 34 Peds 0 0 0 Out TotalIn 1101 1386 2487 24 35 59 1125 2546 1421 Left0 0 0 Thru0 0 0 Rght0 0 0 Peds0 0 0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5/22/2010 11:00 AM 5/22/2010 12:45 PM Class 1 TRUCKS North App. M-53 File Name : NOON_16282 SH82&MARAND Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/22/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound MARAND RD Westbound SH82 Northbound MARAND RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:15 AM 11:15 AM 1 141 0 0 142 3000 30 174 5 0 179 0000 0324 11:30 AM 2 124 0 0 126 2010 30 202 7 0 209 0000 0338 11:45 AM 0 131 0 0 131 7010 80 163 3 0 166 0000 0305 12:00 PM 0 156 0 0 156 2040 60 181 2 0 183 0000 0345 Total Volume 3 552 0 0 555 14 0 6 0 20 0 720 17 0 737 0 0 0 0 0 1312 % App. Total 0.5 99.5 0 0 70 0 30 0 0 97.7 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .375 .885 .000 .000 .889 .500 .000 .375 .000 .625 .000 .891 .607 .000 .882 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .951 SH82 MARAND RD MARAND RD SH82 Rght 0 Thru 552 Left 3 Peds 0 InOut Total 726 555 1281 Rght6 Thru0 Left14 Peds0 OutTotalIn20 20 40 Left 0 Thru 720 Rght 17 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 566 737 1303 Left0 Thru0 Rght0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 11:15 AM Class 1 TRUCKS Peak Hour Data North App. M-54 File Name : AM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 20 241 12 0 21 6 12 0 2633031319 1 416 07:15 AM 28 236 9 0 13 8 7 0 6872012 3 26 0 437 07:30 AM 27 204 13 0 8319010 107 7 0 72271435 07:45 AM 24 198 7 0 16 8 21 0 16 105 2 0 61129 0 443 Total 99 879 41 0 58 25 59 0 34 362 14 0 28 29 101 2 1731 08:00 AM 26 187 11 0 18 4 11 2 10 112 6 0 59140415 08:15 AM 21 179 12 1 16 4 20 1 91305058201432 08:30 AM 23 155 9 0 12 4 11 1 13 116 7 1 54173381 08:45 AM 17 160 12 0 13 3 18 0 14 137 5 0 48170408 Total 87 681 44 1 59 15 60 4 46 495 23 1 19 29 68 4 1636 Grand Total 186 1560 85 1 117 40 119 4 80 857 37 1 47 58 169 6 3367 Apprch %10.2 85.2 4.6 0.1 41.8 14.3 42.5 1.4 8.2 87.9 3.8 0.1 16.8 20.7 60.4 2.1 Total %5.5 46.3 2.5 0 3.5 1.2 3.5 0.1 2.4 25.5 1.1 0 1.41.7 50.2 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 Rght 85 Thru 1560 Left 186 Peds 1 InOut Total 1023 1832 2855 Rght119 Thru40 Left117 Peds4 OutTotalIn281 280 561 Left 80 Thru 857 Rght 37 Peds 1 Out TotalIn 1846 975 2821 Left47 Thru58 Rght169 Peds6 TotalOutIn205 280 485 5/20/2010 07:00 AM 5/20/2010 08:45 AM Class 1 North App. M-55 File Name : AM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 20 241 12 0 273 21 6 12 0 39 263 3 0 68 31319 1 36 416 07:15 AM 28 236 9 0 273 1387028687 2 0 9512 3 26 0 41 437 07:30 AM 27 204 13 0 244 831903010 107 7 0 124 7227137435 07:45 AM 24 198 7 0 229 16 8 21 0 45 16 105 2 0 123 61129 0 46 443 Total Volume 99 879 41 0 1019 58 25 59 0 142 34 362 14 0 410 28 29 101 2 160 1731 % App. Total 9.7 86.3 4 0 40.8 17.6 41.5 0 8.3 88.3 3.4 0 17.5 18.1 63.1 1.2 PHF .884 .912 .788 .000 .933 .690 .781 .702 .000 .789 .531 .846 .500 .000 .827 .583 .558 .871 .500 .870 .977 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 Rght 41 Thru 879 Left 99 Peds 0 InOut Total 449 1019 1468 Rght59 Thru25 Left58 Peds0 OutTotalIn142 142 284 Left 34 Thru 362 Rght 14 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 1038 410 1448 Left28 Thru29 Rght101 Peds2 TotalOutIn100 160 260 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North App. M-56 File Name : PM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 26 106 7 0 12 4 30 0 20 227 4 0 14 6 9 0 465 04:15 PM 21 105 8 0 16 4 18 0 19 250 4 0 13 1 12 0 471 04:30 PM 23 114 7 0 10 9 24 0 17 284 6 0 12 18 7 0 531 04:45 PM 25 147 8 0 8615017 273 3 0 16 9 7 0 534 Total 95 472 30 0 46 23 87 0 73 1034 17 0 55 34 35 0 2001 05:00 PM 30 151 4 0 15 1 28 1 22 272 8 0 17 4 12 1 566 05:15 PM 27 127 7 0 51333 124 291 8 0 6770556 05:30 PM 21 126 7 0 15 9 24 0 29 251 12 0 13 5 7 0 519 05:45 PM 27 104 4 0 6225082297079120440 Total 105 508 22 0 41 25 110 2 83 1043 35 0 43 25 38 1 2081 Grand Total 200 980 52 0 87 48 197 2 156 2077 52 0 98 59 73 1 4082 Apprch %16.2 79.5 4.2 0 26 14.4 59 0.6 6.8 90.9 2.3 0 42.4 25.5 31.6 0.4 Total %4.9 24 1.3 0 2.1 1.2 4.8 0 3.8 50.9 1.3 0 2.4 1.4 1.8 0 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 Rght 52 Thru 980 Left 200 Peds 0 InOut Total 2372 1232 3604 Rght197 Thru48 Left87 Peds2 OutTotalIn311 334 645 Left 156 Thru 2077 Rght 52 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 1140 2285 3425 Left98 Thru59 Rght73 Peds1 TotalOutIn256 231 487 5/20/2010 04:00 PM 5/20/2010 05:45 PM Class 1 North App. M-57 File Name : PM_16284 SH82&SPRING Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/20/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 23 114 7 0 144 10 9 24 0 43 17 284 6 0 307 12 18 7 0 37 531 04:45 PM 25 147 8 0 180 861502917 273 3 0 293 16 9 7 0 32 534 05:00 PM 30 151 4 0 185 15 1 28 1 45 22 272 8 0 302 17 4 12 1 34 566 05:15 PM 27 127 7 0 161 51333 1 5224 291 8 0 323 677020556 Total Volume 105 539 26 0 670 38 29 100 2 169 80 1120 25 0 1225 51 38 33 1 123 2187 % App. Total 15.7 80.4 3.9 0 22.5 17.2 59.2 1.2 6.5 91.4 2 0 41.5 30.9 26.8 0.8 PHF .875 .892 .813 .000 .905 .633 .558 .758 .500 .813 .833 .962 .781 .000 .948 .750 .528 .688 .250 .831 .966 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 Rght 26 Thru 539 Left 105 Peds 0 InOut Total 1271 670 1941 Rght100 Thru29 Left38 Peds2 OutTotalIn168 169 337 Left 80 Thru 1120 Rght 25 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 610 1225 1835 Left51 Thru38 Rght33 Peds1 TotalOutIn135 123 258 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North App. M-58 File Name : NOON_16285 SH82&SPRING Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/22/2010 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Left Thru Rght Peds Int. Total 11:00 AM 18 108 6 0 14 3 17 0 10 150 6 0 6691354 11:15 AM 9 122 6 0 831936 154 11 0 6360356 11:30 AM 17 107 6 0 6635011 179 9 0 5360390 11:45 AM 20 114 7 0 6315111 143 8 0 31120344 Total 64 451 25 0 34 15 86 4 38 626 34 0 20 13 33 1 1444 12:00 PM 19 139 5 0 8114011 161 7 0 2250374 12:15 PM 19 118 5 0 10 1 19 1 18 145 5 0 42141362 12:30 PM 6 121 4 0 821804161404280342 12:45 PM 12 119 7 0 13 5 11 0 11 136 6 0 63110340 Total 56 497 21 0 39 9 62 1 44 603 22 0 16 9 38 1 1418 Grand Total 120 948 46 0 73 24 148 5 82 1229 56 0 36 22 71 2 2862 Apprch %10.8 85.1 4.1 0 29.2 9.6 59.2 2 6 89.9 4.1 0 27.5 16.8 54.2 1.5 Total %4.2 33.1 1.6 0 2.6 0.8 5.2 0.2 2.9 42.9 2 0 1.3 0.8 2.5 0.1 App. M-59 File Name : NOON_16285 SH82&SPRING Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/22/2010 Page No : 2 SH82 Southbound SPRING VALLEY RD Westbound SH82 Northbound SPRING VALLEY RD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Left Thru Rght Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:30 AM 11:30 AM 17 107 6 0 130 663504711 179 9 0 199 536014390 11:45 AM 20 114 7 0 141 631512511 143 8 0 162 3112016344 12:00 PM 19 139 5 0 163 811402311 161 7 0 179 2250 9374 12:15 PM 19 118 5 0 142 10 1 19 1 31 18 145 5 0 168 4214121362 Total Volume 75 478 23 0 576 30 11 83 2 126 51 628 29 0 708 14 8 37 1 60 1470 % App. Total 13 83 4 0 23.8 8.7 65.9 1.6 7.2 88.7 4.1 0 23.3 13.3 61.7 1.7 PHF .938 .860 .821 .000 .883 .750 .458 .593 .500 .670 .708 .877 .806 .000 .889 .700 .667 .661 .250 .714 .942 SH82 SPRING VALLEY RD SPRING VALLEY RD SH82 Rght 23 Thru 478 Left 75 Peds 0 InOut Total 725 576 1301 Rght83 Thru11 Left30 Peds2 OutTotalIn112 126 238 Left 51 Thru 628 Rght 29 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 545 708 1253 Left14 Thru8 Rght37 Peds1 TotalOutIn85 60 145 Peak Hour Begins at 11:30 AM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North App. M-60 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 APPENDIX B: SYNCHRO REPORTS - EXISTING App. M-61 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 427 24 6 1056 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 67 0 13 0 680 38 10 1681 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2046 2418 840 1539 2380 340 1681 718 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1700 1700 680 680 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 346 718 860 1700 vCu, unblocked vol 2046 2418 840 1539 2380 340 1681 718 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 74 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h)92 134 308 257 138 662 386 892 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 80 340 340 38 10 1121 560 Volume Left 0 67 0 0 0 10 0 0 Volume Right 0 13 0 0 38 0 0 0 cSH 1700 306 1700 1700 1700 892 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.66 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 25 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (s)0.0 21.7 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-62 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 70 0 43 0 466 29 38 994 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 116 0 71 0 773 48 63 1650 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2234 2597 825 1724 2549 387 1650 821 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1776 1776 773 773 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 458 821 951 1776 vCu, unblocked vol 2234 2597 825 1724 2549 387 1650 821 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 45 100 87 100 92 cM capacity (veh/h)76 113 316 212 118 566 397 817 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 188 516 274 32 63 1100 550 Volume Left 0 116 0 0 0 63 0 0 Volume Right 0 71 0 16 32 0 0 0 cSH 1700 278 1700 1700 1700 817 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.67 0.30 0.16 0.02 0.08 0.65 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 111 000600 Control Delay (s)0.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.0 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-63 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.83 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1368 1567 1475 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% Adj. Flow (vph)45 46 161 92 40 94 54 576 22 158 1399 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0 31 0 0 0 12 0 0 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 91 31 0 195 0 54 576 10 158 1399 41 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 36.8 36.8 15.3 36.8 36.8 Effective Green, g (s)15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 36.8 36.8 15.3 36.8 36.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)264 302 284 341 1640 715 341 1640 717 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.16 c0.09 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.02 c0.13 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.10 0.69 0.16 0.35 0.01 0.46 0.85 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 26.4 29.8 26.7 13.6 11.5 28.4 18.9 11.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.2 6.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 4.5 4.5 0.0 Delay (s)28.5 26.5 36.6 27.7 13.8 11.5 32.9 23.4 11.8 Level of Service C C D C B B C C B Approach Delay (s) 27.3 36.6 14.9 23.9 Approach LOS C D B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-64 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 1243 36 3 648 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 27 0 51 0 1979 57 5 1032 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2056 3077 516 2504 3020 989 1032 2036 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1041 1041 1979 1979 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1015 2036 525 1041 vCu, unblocked vol 2056 3077 516 2504 3020 989 1032 2036 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 56 100 79 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 149 87 504 62 97 245 669 274 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 78 989 989 57 5 688 344 Volume Left 0 27 000500 Volume Right 0 51 0 0 57 0 0 0 cSH 1700 177 1700 1700 1700 274 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.44 0.58 0.58 0.03 0.02 0.40 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 51 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 51.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 51.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-65 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 5 64 0 1221 48 21 640 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 69 8 105 0 2005 79 34 1051 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2232 3204 525 2599 3125 1003 1051 2084 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1120 1120 2005 2005 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1112 2084 594 1120 vCu, unblocked vol 2232 3204 525 2599 3125 1003 1051 2084 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 73 57 100 87 cM capacity (veh/h)56 56 497 60 30 244 658 270 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 182 1337 695 53 34 701 350 Volume Left 0 69 0 0 0 34 0 0 Volume Right 0 105 0 26 53 0 0 0 cSH 1700 99 1700 1700 1700 270 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.84 0.79 0.41 0.03 0.13 0.41 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 375 0 0 0 11 0 0 Control Delay (s)0.0 488.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 488.1 0.0 0.6 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 26.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-66 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 1120 25 105 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1567 1718 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Flt Permitted 0.48 1.00 0.86 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)893 1567 1490 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% Adj. Flow (vph)82 61 53 61 47 161 129 1801 40 169 867 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 43 0 64 0 0 0 11 0 0 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 143 10 0 205 0 129 1801 29 169 867 21 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 15.1 41.1 41.1 15.1 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s)15.5 15.5 15.5 15.1 41.1 41.1 15.1 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.18 0.49 0.49 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)165 290 276 319 1738 758 319 1738 760 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.51 c0.10 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.03 0.74 0.40 1.04 0.04 0.53 0.50 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 28.0 32.2 30.3 21.3 11.0 31.1 14.4 11.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 34.8 0.0 10.2 3.8 31.6 0.0 6.2 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)67.9 28.0 42.5 34.1 52.9 11.1 37.3 14.6 11.0 Level of Service E C D C D B D B B Approach Delay (s)57.1 42.5 50.8 18.0 Approach LOS E D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-67 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 720 17 3 552 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 23 0 10 0 1182 28 5 906 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1512 2127 453 1645 2099 591 906 1210 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 916 916 1182 1182 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 596 1210 463 916 vCu, unblocked vol 1512 2127 453 1645 2099 591 906 1210 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 88 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 247 201 554 189 208 450 746 572 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 33 591 591 28 5 604 302 Volume Left 0 23 000500 Volume Right 0 10 0 0 28 0 0 0 cSH 1700 270 1700 1700 1700 572 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay (s)0.0 22.6 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-68 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 26 0 37 0 697 31 20 551 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 42 0 60 0 1121 50 32 886 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1570 2121 443 1628 2071 560 886 1171 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 950 950 1121 1121 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 620 1171 507 950 vCu, unblocked vol 1570 2121 443 1628 2071 560 886 1171 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.0 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 80 100 87 100 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 214 188 562 204 213 459 772 598 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 101 747 390 33 32 591 295 Volume Left 0 42 0 0 0 32 0 0 Volume Right 0 60 0 17 33 0 0 0 cSH 1700 303 1700 1700 1700 598 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.33 0.44 0.23 0.02 0.05 0.35 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 36 000400 Control Delay (s)0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay (s)0.0 22.8 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-69 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 7/6/2010 Existing Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1329 1567 1567 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% 156% Adj. Flow (vph)23 13 61 50 18 138 85 1042 48 124 793 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 90 0 0 0 27 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 36 10 0 116 0 85 1042 21 124 793 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 10.1 15.5 25.7 25.7 15.5 25.7 25.7 Effective Green, g (s)10.1 10.1 10.1 15.5 25.7 25.7 15.5 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.41 0.41 0.24 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)212 250 250 433 1437 627 433 1437 628 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.29 c0.07 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.07 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.04 0.46 0.20 0.73 0.03 0.29 0.55 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 23.0 22.5 24.1 19.0 15.8 11.3 19.4 14.4 11.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 Delay (s)23.4 22.6 25.5 20.0 17.7 11.3 21.1 14.9 11.3 Level of Service C C C B B B C B B Approach Delay (s)22.9 25.5 17.6 15.5 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.3 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-70 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 APPENDIX C: SYNCHRO REPORTS - FUTURE App. M-71 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.82 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1328 1567 1467 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)49 51 178 102 44 104 60 639 25 175 1552 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 143 0 30 0 0 0 13 0 0 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 100 35 0 220 0 60 639 12 175 1552 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)16.7 16.7 16.7 15.1 40.0 40.0 15.1 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s)16.7 16.7 16.7 15.1 40.0 40.0 15.1 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.48 0.48 0.18 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)265 312 292 319 1689 737 319 1689 738 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.18 c0.10 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 c0.15 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.11 0.75 0.19 0.38 0.02 0.55 0.92 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 27.5 31.6 29.1 14.0 11.5 31.2 20.4 11.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 10.4 1.3 0.1 0.0 6.6 8.4 0.0 Delay (s)30.0 27.6 42.0 30.5 14.1 11.5 37.9 28.8 11.9 Level of Service C C D C B B D C B Approach Delay (s) 28.5 42.0 15.4 29.0 Approach LOS C D B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.8 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-72 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 427 24 6 1056 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 74 0 14 0 754 42 11 1864 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2269 2682 932 1707 2639 377 1864 796 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1885 1885 754 754 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 384 796 953 1885 vCu, unblocked vol 2269 2682 932 1707 2639 377 1864 796 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 67 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h)70 109 268 224 112 627 328 835 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 88 377 377 42 11 1243 621 Volume Left 0 74 0 0 0 11 0 0 Volume Right 0 14 0 0 42 0 0 0 cSH 1700 267 1700 1700 1700 835 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.73 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 35 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s)0.0 25.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-73 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 70 0 43 0 466 29 38 994 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 129 0 79 0 858 53 70 1829 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2477 2880 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1969 1969 858 858 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 508 911 1055 1969 vCu, unblocked vol 2477 2880 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 29 100 85 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h)56 89 275 181 94 530 338 756 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 208 429 429 53 70 1220 610 Volume Left 0 129 0 0 0 70 0 0 Volume Right 0 79 0 0 53 0 0 0 cSH 1700 241 1700 1700 1700 756 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.86 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.09 0.72 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 175 000800 Control Delay (s)0.0 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F B Approach Delay (s)0.0 71.0 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-74 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 1120 25 105 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1567 1719 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Flt Permitted 0.48 1.00 0.83 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)878 1567 1434 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)91 68 59 68 52 178 143 1998 45 187 961 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 47 0 63 0 0 0 11 0 0 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 159 12 0 235 0 143 1998 34 187 961 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)17.3 17.3 17.3 15.0 41.1 41.1 15.0 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s)17.3 17.3 17.3 15.0 41.1 41.1 15.0 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.48 0.48 0.18 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)178 317 290 311 1703 743 311 1703 745 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.56 c0.11 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.04 0.81 0.46 1.17 0.05 0.60 0.56 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 27.4 32.5 31.6 22.2 11.7 32.4 15.8 11.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 38.6 0.0 15.6 4.8 84.6 0.0 8.3 0.4 0.0 Delay (s)71.8 27.4 48.1 36.4 106.7 11.8 40.8 16.2 11.7 Level of Service E C D D F B D B B Approach Delay (s)59.8 48.1 100.1 19.9 Approach LOS E D F B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 69.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-75 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 1243 36 3 648 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 56 0 2194 64 5 1144 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2280 3412 572 2777 3349 1097 1144 2258 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1155 1155 2194 2194 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1125 2258 583 1155 vCu, unblocked vol 2280 3412 572 2777 3349 1097 1144 2258 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 33 100 73 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 118 66 463 45 76 208 607 224 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 86 1097 1097 64 5 763 381 Volume Left 0 30 000500 Volume Right 0 56 0 0 64 0 0 0 cSH 1700 129 1700 1700 1700 224 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 91 000200 Control Delay (s)0.0 82.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 82.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-76 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 5 64 0 1221 48 21 640 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 76 9 117 0 2224 87 38 1165 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1242 1242 2224 2224 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1233 2311 659 1242 vCu, unblocked vol 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 57 44 100 83 cM capacity (veh/h)10 32 456 44 21 207 595 220 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 202 1112 1112 87 38 777 388 Volume Left 0 76 0 0 0 38 0 0 Volume Right 0 117 0 0 87 0 0 0 cSH 1700 74 1700 1700 1700 220 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 2.74 0.65 0.65 0.05 0.17 0.46 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 496 0 0 0 15 0 0 Control Delay (s)0.0 906.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 906.2 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 49.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-77 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1254 1567 1565 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)26 15 68 55 20 153 94 1156 53 138 880 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 90 0 0 0 26 0 0 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 41 11 0 138 0 94 1156 27 138 880 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)11.3 11.3 11.3 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 29.4 29.4 Effective Green, g (s)11.3 11.3 11.3 15.5 29.4 29.4 15.5 29.4 29.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)208 260 259 402 1526 666 402 1526 667 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.33 c0.08 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.09 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.04 0.53 0.23 0.76 0.04 0.34 0.58 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 23.9 26.0 21.5 16.4 11.2 22.1 14.7 11.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 2.1 1.4 2.2 0.0 2.3 0.5 0.0 Delay (s)25.0 24.0 28.1 22.9 18.6 11.3 24.4 15.2 11.2 Level of Service C C C C B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 24.4 28.1 18.6 16.3 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.2 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-78 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 720 17 3 552 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 25 0 11 0 1311 31 5 1005 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1677 2358 503 1825 2327 656 1005 1342 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1016 1016 1311 1311 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 661 1342 514 1016 vCu, unblocked vol 1677 2358 503 1825 2327 656 1005 1342 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 84 100 97 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 214 173 514 158 180 408 685 509 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 36 656 656 31 5 670 335 Volume Left 0 25 000500 Volume Right 0 11 0 0 31 0 0 0 cSH 1700 225 1700 1700 1700 509 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.16 0.39 0.39 0.02 0.01 0.39 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 14 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s)0.0 26.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-79 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 26 0 37 0 697 31 20 551 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 46 0 66 0 1243 55 36 983 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1742 2352 491 1806 2297 622 983 1298 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1054 1054 1243 1243 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 688 1298 563 1054 vCu, unblocked vol 1742 2352 491 1806 2297 622 983 1298 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.0 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 73 100 84 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 181 158 523 172 184 418 711 535 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 112 622 622 55 36 655 328 Volume Left 0 46 0 0 0 36 0 0 Volume Right 0 66 0 0 55 0 0 0 cSH 1700 263 1700 1700 1700 535 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.43 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 51 000500 Control Delay (s)0.0 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s)0.0 28.5 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-80 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 697 14 99 1567 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.82 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1324 1567 1467 1770 3539 1543 1770 3539 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 100% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)49 51 178 102 44 104 60 711 25 175 1599 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 143 0 30 0 0 0 13 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 100 35 0 220 0 60 711 12 175 1599 49 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)16.8 16.8 16.8 15.0 41.1 41.1 15.0 41.1 41.1 Effective Green, g (s)16.8 16.8 16.8 15.0 41.1 41.1 15.0 41.1 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.48 0.48 0.18 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)262 310 290 313 1713 747 313 1713 749 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.20 c0.10 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 c0.15 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.11 0.76 0.19 0.42 0.02 0.56 0.93 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 27.9 32.1 29.8 14.1 11.4 31.9 20.6 11.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 10.7 1.4 0.2 0.0 7.0 9.8 0.0 Delay (s)30.5 28.1 42.9 31.1 14.3 11.4 39.0 30.5 11.7 Level of Service C C D C B B D C B Approach Delay (s) 29.0 42.9 15.5 30.5 Approach LOS C D B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.9 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-81 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 810 24 6 1873 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 74 0 14 0 827 42 11 1911 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2353 2801 956 1803 2759 413 1911 869 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1932 1932 827 827 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 420 869 977 1932 vCu, unblocked vol 2353 2801 956 1803 2759 413 1911 869 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 65 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h)65 103 259 210 103 594 307 784 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 88 413 413 42 11 956 956 Volume Left 0 74 0 0 0 11 0 0 Volume Right 0 14 0 0 42 0 0 0 cSH 1700 250 1700 1700 1700 784 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.35 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.56 0.56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 38 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s)0.0 28.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-82 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)71 0 131 70 0 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 0 139 129 0 79 27 858 53 70 1829 49 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2555 2958 939 2105 2929 429 1878 911 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1994 1994 911 911 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 561 964 1194 2018 vCu, unblocked vol 2555 2958 939 2105 2929 429 1878 911 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %0 100 47 0 100 85 92 91 cM capacity (veh/h)54 85 265 57 64 530 324 756 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 215 208 27 429 429 53 70 1220 659 Volume Left 76 129 27 0 0 0 70 0 0 Volume Right 139 79 0 0 0 53 0 0 49 cSH 112 87 324 1700 1700 1700 756 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 1.92 2.39 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.09 0.72 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ft) 437 480 7000800 Control Delay (s)510.9 738.2 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F C B Approach Delay (s) 510.9 738.2 0.5 0.4 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 79.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-83 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 2021 25 105 1007 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1567 1719 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Flt Permitted 0.43 1.00 0.75 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)793 1567 1300 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 100% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)91 68 59 68 52 178 143 2084 45 187 1038 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 49 0 0 0 10 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 159 11 0 249 0 143 2084 35 187 1038 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 61.0 61.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 61.0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.56 0.56 0.14 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)151 299 248 257 1995 868 241 1963 857 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.59 c0.11 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.04 1.01 0.56 1.04 0.04 0.78 0.53 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 36.3 44.5 43.7 24.0 10.7 45.9 15.4 11.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 88.0 0.1 58.7 8.4 32.9 0.0 21.3 0.3 0.0 Delay (s)132.5 36.3 103.2 52.1 56.9 10.7 67.2 15.7 11.1 Level of Service F D F D EBEBB Approach Delay (s)106.5 103.2 55.7 23.1 Approach LOS F F E C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-84 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 2234 36 3 1196 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 56 0 2280 64 5 1220 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2399 3574 610 2900 3511 1140 1220 2343 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1231 1231 2280 2280 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1168 2343 621 1231 vCu, unblocked vol 2399 3574 610 2900 3511 1140 1220 2343 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 24 100 71 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 107 59 437 39 68 195 567 207 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 86 1140 1140 64 5 814 407 Volume Left 0 30 000500 Volume Right 0 56 0 0 64 0 0 0 cSH 1700 114 1700 1700 1700 207 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.04 0.03 0.48 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 106 000200 Control Delay (s)0.0 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 98.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-85 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)84 0 45 42 5 64 140 1221 48 21 640 75 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 0 47 76 9 117 147 2224 87 38 1165 79 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2809 3887 622 3225 3839 1112 1244 2311 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1281 1281 2518 2518 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1528 2606 707 1321 vCu, unblocked vol 2809 3887 622 3225 3839 1112 1244 2311 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %0 100 89 0 0 44 73 83 cM capacity (veh/h)0 2 429 21 0 207 555 220 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 136 202 147 1112 1112 87 38 777 467 Volume Left 88 76 147 0 0 0 38 0 0 Volume Right 47 117 0 0 0 87 0 0 79 cSH 0 5 555 1700 1700 1700 220 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity Err 37.89 0.27 0.65 0.65 0.05 0.17 0.46 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 27 0 0 0 15 0 0 Control Delay (s)Err Err 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F F B C Approach Delay (s)Err Err 0.8 0.7 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-86 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 1166 29 75 917 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.66 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1225 1567 1564 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 100% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)26 15 68 55 20 153 94 1240 53 138 976 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 91 0 0 0 23 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 41 11 0 137 0 94 1240 30 138 976 19 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 15.5 31.7 31.7 15.5 31.7 31.7 Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 15.5 31.7 31.7 15.5 31.7 31.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.45 0.45 0.22 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)198 253 253 389 1589 693 389 1589 695 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.35 c0.08 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.09 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.04 0.54 0.24 0.78 0.04 0.35 0.61 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 25.0 27.2 22.7 16.5 10.9 23.3 14.8 10.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 2.4 1.5 2.6 0.0 2.5 0.7 0.0 Delay (s)26.2 25.1 29.6 24.2 19.1 11.0 25.8 15.5 10.9 Level of Service C C C C B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 25.5 29.6 19.1 16.6 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-87 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 1326 17 3 1045 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 25 0 11 0 1396 31 5 1100 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1814 2538 550 1957 2507 698 1100 1427 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1111 1111 1396 1396 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 703 1427 561 1111 vCu, unblocked vol 1814 2538 550 1957 2507 698 1100 1427 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 82 100 97 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 189 155 479 140 162 383 630 473 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 36 698 698 31 5 733 367 Volume Left 0 25 000500 Volume Right 0 11 0 0 31 0 0 0 cSH 1700 200 1700 1700 1700 473 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.02 0.01 0.43 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 16 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s)0.0 29.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-88 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)80 0 80 26 0 37 90 697 31 20 551 90 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 0 82 46 0 66 93 1243 55 36 983 93 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1974 2584 538 2074 2576 622 1075 1298 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1100 1100 1429 1429 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 873 1484 645 1147 vCu, unblocked vol 1974 2584 538 2074 2576 622 1075 1298 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.0 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %40 100 83 57 100 84 86 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 138 110 488 108 117 418 656 535 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 165 112 93 622 622 55 36 655 420 Volume Left 82 46 93 0 0 0 36 0 0 Volume Right 82 66 0 0 0 55 0 0 93 cSH 216 192 656 1700 1700 1700 535 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.77 0.59 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 133 80 12 000500 Control Delay (s)61.3 47.4 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F E B B Approach Delay (s) 61.3 47.4 0.8 0.4 Approach LOS F E Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-89 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 0.81 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1292 1567 1453 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)58 60 208 120 52 122 70 746 29 204 1812 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 91 0 34 0 0 0 17 0 0 30 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 118 117 0 260 0 70 746 12 204 1812 55 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.6 15.6 15.6 4.0 29.4 29.4 15.1 40.5 40.5 Effective Green, g (s)15.6 15.6 15.6 4.0 29.4 29.4 15.1 40.5 40.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.21 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)280 339 314 98 1443 630 371 1988 870 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.21 c0.12 c0.51 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.07 c0.18 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.35 0.83 0.71 0.52 0.02 0.55 0.91 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 23.9 27.0 33.5 16.0 12.7 25.5 14.2 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.6 16.1 35.9 0.3 0.0 5.8 6.8 0.0 Delay (s)25.4 24.5 43.1 69.4 16.3 12.8 31.2 21.0 7.2 Level of Service C C D E B B C C A Approach Delay (s)24.8 43.1 20.6 21.4 Approach LOS CDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.1 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-90 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 427 24 6 1056 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 87 0 16 0 880 49 12 2177 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2650 3131 1088 1993 3082 440 2177 930 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2201 2201 880 880 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 448 930 1113 2201 vCu, unblocked vol 2650 3131 1088 1993 3082 440 2177 930 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 51 100 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h)44 76 211 178 78 570 248 744 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 103 440 440 49 12 1451 726 Volume Left 0 87 0 0 0 12 0 0 Volume Right 0 16 0 0 49 0 0 0 cSH 1700 212 1700 1700 1700 744 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.49 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 60 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s)0.0 38.0 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-91 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 70 0 43 0 466 29 38 994 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 150 0 92 0 1001 62 82 2136 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2892 3363 1068 2233 3301 501 2136 1064 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2299 2299 1001 1001 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 593 1064 1231 2299 vCu, unblocked vol 2892 3363 1068 2233 3301 501 2136 1064 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 100 80 100 88 cM capacity (veh/h)33 59 217 137 62 473 257 663 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 150 0 92 501 501 62 82 1424 712 Volume Left 0 150 000008200 Volume Right 0 0 0 92 0 0 62 0 0 0 cSH 1700 137 1700 473 1700 1700 1700 663 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.12 0.84 0.42 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 209 0 18 0 0 0 10 0 0 Control Delay (s)0.0 168.6 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F A B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 109.9 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-92 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 1120 25 105 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1567 1718 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 0.64 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)698 1567 1120 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)106 79 69 79 60 208 167 2332 52 219 1122 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 49 0 0 0 10 0 0 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 185 13 0 298 0 167 2332 42 219 1122 33 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 61.0 61.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 61.0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.56 0.56 0.14 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)133 299 214 257 1995 868 241 1963 857 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.66 c0.12 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.01 c0.27 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.39 0.04 1.39 0.65 1.17 0.05 0.91 0.57 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 36.3 44.5 44.4 24.0 10.8 46.8 16.0 11.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 215.3 0.1 202.0 12.1 81.8 0.0 38.4 0.4 0.0 Delay (s)259.8 36.4 246.5 56.4 105.8 10.8 85.2 16.4 11.2 Level of Service F D F E F B F B B Approach Delay (s)199.1 246.5 100.6 27.0 Approach LOS F F F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 94.7 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 110.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-93 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 1243 36 3 648 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 35 0 66 0 2562 74 6 1336 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2662 3984 668 3242 3910 1281 1336 2636 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1348 1348 2562 2562 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1314 2636 680 1348 vCu, unblocked vol 2662 3984 668 3242 3910 1281 1336 2636 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 100 58 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h)74 40 401 26 49 156 512 158 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 101 1281 1281 74 6 890 445 Volume Left 0 35 000600 Volume Right 0 66 0 0 74 0 0 0 cSH 1700 69 1700 1700 1700 158 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.47 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 213 000300 Control Delay (s)0.0 378.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s)0.0 378.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-94 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 5 64 0 1221 48 21 640 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 89 11 136 0 2596 102 45 1361 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2890 4148 680 3366 4046 1298 1361 2698 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1450 1450 2596 2596 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1440 2698 770 1450 vCu, unblocked vol 2890 4148 680 3366 4046 1298 1361 2698 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 6 12 100 71 cM capacity (veh/h)0 2 393 25 11 155 501 155 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 89 11 136 1298 1298 102 45 907 454 Volume Left 0 89 000004500 Volume Right 0 0 0 136 0 0 102 0 0 0 cSH 1700 25 11 155 1700 1700 1700 155 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 3.54 0.94 0.88 0.76 0.76 0.06 0.29 0.53 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Err 49 151 0 0 0 28 0 0 Control Delay (s)0.0 Err 679.1 100.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F F F E Approach Delay (s)0.0 3871.9 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 211.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-95 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.60 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1099 1567 1557 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)30 17 80 64 24 178 110 1350 62 161 1027 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 0 103 0 0 0 29 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 47 13 0 163 0 110 1350 33 161 1027 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 30.3 30.3 15.2 36.4 36.4 Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 30.3 30.3 15.2 36.4 36.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.22 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)182 259 258 234 1556 679 390 1870 818 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.38 c0.09 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 c0.10 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.05 0.63 0.47 0.87 0.05 0.41 0.55 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 24.2 26.8 27.7 17.5 11.1 23.0 10.8 7.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 5.0 6.6 5.4 0.0 3.2 0.3 0.0 Delay (s)25.8 24.3 31.8 34.3 22.9 11.1 26.2 11.1 7.8 Level of Service C C C C C B C B A Approach Delay (s) 24.8 31.8 23.2 13.0 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.9 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-96 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 720 17 3 552 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 13 0 1531 36 6 1174 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1186 1186 1531 1531 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 772 1567 600 1186 vCu, unblocked vol 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 74 100 96 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 168 133 453 116 141 346 591 417 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 43 765 765 36 6 782 391 Volume Left 0 30 000600 Volume Right 0 13 0 0 36 0 0 0 cSH 1700 165 1700 1700 1700 417 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.26 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 24 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s)0.0 37.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-97 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 26 0 37 0 697 31 20 551 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 54 0 77 0 1451 65 42 1147 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2034 2747 574 2109 2682 726 1147 1516 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1231 1231 1451 1451 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 803 1516 657 1231 vCu, unblocked vol 2034 2747 574 2109 2682 726 1147 1516 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.0 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 58 100 78 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 133 114 462 129 144 356 616 442 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 54 0 77 726 726 65 42 765 382 Volume Left 0 54 000004200 Volume Right 0 0 0 77 0 0 65 0 0 0 cSH 1700 129 1700 356 1700 1700 1700 442 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.22 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.09 0.45 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 46 0 20 000800 Control Delay (s)0.0 51.9 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F A C B Approach Delay (s)0.0 31.9 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-98 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 802 14 99 1822 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 0.81 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1290 1567 1453 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 100% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)58 60 208 120 52 122 70 818 29 204 1859 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 89 0 34 0 0 0 17 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 118 119 0 260 0 70 818 12 204 1859 56 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.7 15.7 15.7 4.0 29.9 29.9 15.1 41.0 41.0 Effective Green, g (s)15.7 15.7 15.7 4.0 29.9 29.9 15.1 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.21 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)279 338 314 97 1456 635 368 1996 873 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.23 c0.12 c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.08 c0.18 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.35 0.83 0.72 0.56 0.02 0.55 0.93 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 24.2 27.2 33.8 16.4 12.7 25.8 14.6 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.6 16.1 37.1 0.5 0.0 5.9 8.5 0.0 Delay (s)25.6 24.8 43.3 70.9 16.9 12.7 31.7 23.1 7.2 Level of Service C C D E B B C C A Approach Delay (s)25.1 43.3 20.9 23.3 Approach LOS CDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)71 0 131 70 0 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1671 1631 1805 3505 1615 1805 3495 Flt Permitted 0.82 0.63 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1402 1060 156 3505 1615 473 3495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 76 0 139 150 0 92 27 1001 62 82 2136 49 RTOR Reduction (vph)08003000021020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 207 0 0 212 0 27 1001 41 82 2183 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 19% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)17.1 17.1 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 Effective Green, g (s)17.1 17.1 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)324 245 103 2315 1066 312 2308 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.62 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.20 0.17 0.03 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.87 0.26 0.43 0.04 0.26 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 25.6 27.3 5.2 6.0 4.4 5.2 11.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 25.7 6.1 0.6 0.1 2.0 9.7 Delay (s)29.7 53.0 11.3 6.6 4.4 7.2 21.1 Level of Service C D BAAAC Approach Delay (s)29.7 53.0 6.6 20.6 Approach LOS C D A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.9 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-100 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project AM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 934 24 6 2179 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 87 0 16 0 953 49 12 2223 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2733 3251 1112 2090 3201 477 2223 1003 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2248 2248 953 953 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 485 1003 1136 2248 vCu, unblocked vol 2733 3251 1112 2090 3201 477 2223 1003 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 48 100 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h)41 71 203 167 72 540 231 699 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 103 477 477 49 12 1112 1112 Volume Left 0 87 0 0 0 12 0 0 Volume Right 0 16 0 0 49 0 0 0 cSH 1700 199 1700 1700 1700 699 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.65 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 66 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-101 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 2347 25 105 1164 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 1607 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1324 1844 1567 1256 1891 1607 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 100% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)106 79 69 79 60 208 167 2420 52 219 1200 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 0 169 0080017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 79 8 79 60 39 167 2420 44 219 1200 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 20.0 77.0 77.0 15.0 72.0 72.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 20.0 77.0 77.0 15.0 72.0 72.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.66 0.66 0.13 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 150 209 178 142 214 182 302 2323 1011 226 2172 949 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.03 0.09 c0.68 c0.12 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.38 0.04 0.56 0.28 0.21 0.55 1.04 0.04 0.97 0.55 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 50.1 48.2 46.3 49.2 47.6 47.2 44.6 20.1 7.1 50.9 13.2 9.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 1.1 0.1 4.7 0.7 0.6 7.1 30.6 0.0 52.4 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 64.2 49.3 46.4 53.9 48.3 47.8 51.7 50.8 7.1 103.3 13.5 9.0 Level of Service E DDDDDDDAFBA Approach Delay (s)54.8 49.3 50.0 26.7 Approach LOS DDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 117.3 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-102 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)84 0 45 42 5 64 140 1221 48 21 640 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719 1643 1770 3539 1583 1805 3482 Flt Permitted 0.59 0.84 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1053 1401 260 3539 1583 144 3482 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 88 0 47 89 11 136 147 2596 102 45 1361 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 00400024050 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 109 0 0 232 0 147 2596 78 45 1435 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 100% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.1 15.1 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 Effective Green, g (s)15.1 15.1 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 52.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)209 278 181 2463 1102 100 2424 v/s Ratio Prot c0.73 0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.17 0.56 0.05 0.31 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.83 0.81 1.05 0.07 0.45 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 29.2 8.1 11.6 3.7 5.1 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 18.9 31.4 34.4 0.1 13.9 1.1 Delay (s)29.4 48.2 39.4 45.9 3.8 19.1 7.0 Level of Service C D D D A B A Approach Delay (s)29.4 48.2 44.1 7.4 Approach LOS C D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-103 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project PM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 2595 36 3 1384 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 35 0 66 0 2648 74 6 1412 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2782 4147 706 3366 4073 1324 1412 2722 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1425 1425 2648 2648 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1357 2722 718 1425 vCu, unblocked vol 2782 4147 706 3366 4073 1324 1412 2722 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 100 55 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h)65 35 378 23 44 146 479 146 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 101 1324 1324 74 6 941 471 Volume Left 0 35 000600 Volume Right 0 66 0 0 74 0 0 0 cSH 1700 59 1700 1700 1700 146 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.71 0.78 0.78 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 233 000300 Control Delay (s)0.0 494.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s)0.0 494.3 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 11.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-104 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 1349 29 75 1056 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1083 1567 1557 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 100% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)30 17 80 64 24 178 110 1435 62 161 1123 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 0 103 0 0 0 26 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 47 13 0 163 0 110 1435 36 161 1123 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 31.3 31.3 15.1 37.3 37.3 Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 9.1 31.3 31.3 15.1 37.3 37.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.22 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)177 256 254 231 1587 692 383 1891 827 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.41 c0.09 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 c0.10 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.05 0.64 0.48 0.90 0.05 0.42 0.59 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 24.6 27.3 28.1 17.9 10.9 23.6 11.1 7.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 5.5 6.9 7.6 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.0 Delay (s)26.3 24.7 32.8 35.0 25.5 10.9 26.9 11.6 7.7 Level of Service C C C D C B C B A Approach Delay (s) 25.3 32.8 25.6 13.3 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.8 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-105 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)80 0 80 26 0 37 90 697 31 20 551 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1695 1646 1805 3574 1615 1787 3534 Flt Permitted 0.76 0.79 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1324 1323 374 3574 1615 278 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 0 82 54 0 77 93 1451 65 42 1147 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 0 0 44 0 0 0 17 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 110 0 0 87 0 93 1451 48 42 1234 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.6 10.6 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 Effective Green, g (s)10.6 10.6 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)200 200 275 2626 1186 204 2596 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.43 0.34 0.55 0.04 0.21 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 27.0 3.3 4.2 2.5 2.9 3.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 1.5 3.3 0.8 0.1 2.3 0.6 Delay (s)30.6 28.5 6.6 5.0 2.6 5.2 4.4 Level of Service C C AAAAA Approach Delay (s)30.6 28.5 5.0 4.4 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.1 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-106 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project Sat Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 1535 17 3 1205 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 13 0 1616 36 6 1268 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2095 2933 634 2263 2897 808 1268 1652 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1281 1281 1616 1616 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 814 1652 647 1281 vCu, unblocked vol 2095 2933 634 2263 2897 808 1268 1652 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 71 100 96 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 148 120 422 102 127 324 544 387 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 43 808 808 36 6 846 423 Volume Left 0 30 000600 Volume Right 0 13 0 0 36 0 0 0 cSH 1700 146 1700 1700 1700 387 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.50 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 28 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s)0.0 42.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-107 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.82 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1378 1567 1467 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)49 51 178 102 44 104 60 639 25 175 1552 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 100 0 35 0 0 0 16 0 0 30 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 100 78 0 215 0 60 639 9 175 1552 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)13.7 13.7 13.7 4.1 24.4 24.4 15.5 35.8 35.8 Effective Green, g (s)13.7 13.7 13.7 4.1 24.4 24.4 15.5 35.8 35.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)288 327 306 111 1316 575 418 1931 845 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.18 c0.10 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 c0.15 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.24 0.70 0.54 0.49 0.02 0.42 0.80 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 22.1 21.6 24.1 29.8 15.8 13.0 21.2 12.1 7.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.4 7.1 17.6 0.3 0.0 3.1 2.5 0.0 Delay (s)22.9 22.0 31.2 47.4 16.1 13.0 24.3 14.6 7.0 Level of Service C C C D B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 22.3 31.2 18.6 15.2 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-108 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 427 24 6 1056 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 74 0 14 0 754 42 11 1864 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2269 2682 932 1707 2639 377 1864 796 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1885 1885 754 754 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 384 796 953 1885 vCu, unblocked vol 2269 2682 932 1707 2639 377 1864 796 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 67 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h)70 109 268 224 112 627 328 835 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 88 377 377 42 11 1243 621 Volume Left 0 74 0 0 0 11 0 0 Volume Right 0 14 0 0 42 0 0 0 cSH 1700 267 1700 1700 1700 835 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.73 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 35 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s)0.0 25.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-109 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 70 0 43 0 466 29 38 994 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 129 0 79 0 858 53 70 1829 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2477 2880 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1969 1969 858 858 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 508 911 1055 1969 vCu, unblocked vol 2477 2880 915 1912 2827 429 1829 911 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.3 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 29 100 85 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h)56 89 275 181 94 530 338 756 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 129 0 79 429 429 53 70 1220 610 Volume Left 0 129 000007000 Volume Right 0 0 0 79 0 0 53 0 0 0 cSH 1700 181 1700 530 1700 1700 1700 756 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.09 0.72 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 111 0 13 000800 Control Delay (s)0.0 63.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F A B B Approach Delay (s)0.0 44.0 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-110 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 1120 25 105 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1567 1719 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Flt Permitted 0.43 1.00 0.75 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)793 1567 1300 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)91 68 59 68 52 178 143 1998 45 187 961 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 49 0 0 0 10 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 159 11 0 249 0 143 1998 35 187 961 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 61.0 61.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 61.0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.56 0.56 0.14 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)151 299 248 257 1995 868 241 1963 857 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.56 c0.11 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.04 1.01 0.56 1.00 0.04 0.78 0.49 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 36.3 44.5 43.7 24.0 10.7 45.9 15.0 11.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 88.0 0.1 58.7 8.4 20.5 0.0 21.3 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)132.5 36.3 103.2 52.1 44.5 10.7 67.2 15.2 11.1 Level of Service F D F D D BEBB Approach Delay (s)106.5 103.2 44.3 23.2 Approach LOS F F D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-111 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 1243 36 3 648 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 56 0 2194 64 5 1144 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2280 3412 572 2777 3349 1097 1144 2258 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1155 1155 2194 2194 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1125 2258 583 1155 vCu, unblocked vol 2280 3412 572 2777 3349 1097 1144 2258 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 33 100 73 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 118 66 463 45 76 208 607 224 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 86 1097 1097 64 5 763 381 Volume Left 0 30 000500 Volume Right 0 56 0 0 64 0 0 0 cSH 1700 129 1700 1700 1700 224 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 91 000200 Control Delay (s)0.0 82.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 82.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-112 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 5 64 0 1221 48 21 640 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 76 9 117 0 2224 87 38 1165 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1242 1242 2224 2224 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1233 2311 659 1242 vCu, unblocked vol 2475 3553 583 2883 3465 1112 1165 2311 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 57 44 100 83 cM capacity (veh/h)10 32 456 44 21 207 595 220 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 76 9 117 1112 1112 87 38 777 388 Volume Left 0 76 000003800 Volume Right 0 0 0 117 0 0 87 0 0 0 cSH 1700 44 21 207 1700 1700 1700 220 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.74 0.43 0.56 0.65 0.65 0.05 0.17 0.46 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 194 31 76 0 0 0 15 0 0 Control Delay (s)0.0 558.7 268.1 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F F E C Approach Delay (s)0.0 248.2 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 13.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-113 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.66 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1211 1567 1561 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)26 15 68 55 20 153 94 1156 53 138 880 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 104 0 0 0 30 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 41 11 0 124 0 94 1156 23 138 880 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 10.1 9.2 26.8 26.8 15.3 32.9 32.9 Effective Green, g (s)10.1 10.1 10.1 9.2 26.8 26.8 15.3 32.9 32.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.24 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)191 247 246 254 1477 645 422 1814 793 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.33 c0.08 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.08 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.04 0.50 0.37 0.78 0.04 0.33 0.49 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 23.6 23.0 24.7 24.9 16.2 11.1 20.2 10.2 7.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.6 4.1 2.8 0.0 2.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)24.2 23.0 26.4 29.0 19.0 11.1 22.3 10.4 7.8 Level of Service C C C C B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 23.4 26.4 19.4 11.8 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.2 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-114 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 720 17 3 552 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 25 0 11 0 1311 31 5 1005 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1677 2358 503 1825 2327 656 1005 1342 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1016 1016 1311 1311 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 661 1342 514 1016 vCu, unblocked vol 1677 2358 503 1825 2327 656 1005 1342 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 84 100 97 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 214 173 514 158 180 408 685 509 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 36 656 656 31 5 670 335 Volume Left 0 25 000500 Volume Right 0 11 0 0 31 0 0 0 cSH 1700 225 1700 1700 1700 509 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.16 0.39 0.39 0.02 0.01 0.39 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 14 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s)0.0 26.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-115 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 26 0 37 0 697 31 20 551 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 46 0 66 0 1243 55 36 983 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1742 2352 491 1806 2297 622 983 1298 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1054 1054 1243 1243 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 688 1298 563 1054 vCu, unblocked vol 1742 2352 491 1806 2297 622 983 1298 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.0 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 73 100 84 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 181 158 523 172 184 418 711 535 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 46 0 66 622 622 55 36 655 328 Volume Left 0 46 000003600 Volume Right 0 0 0 66 0 0 55 0 0 0 cSH 1700 172 1700 418 1700 1700 1700 535 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.07 0.39 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 26 0 14 000500 Control Delay (s)0.0 33.4 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D A C B Approach Delay (s)0.0 22.7 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-116 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 697 14 99 1567 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1800 1567 1749 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.82 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1374 1567 1467 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 100% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)49 51 178 102 44 104 60 711 25 175 1599 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 35 0 0 0 16 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 100 80 0 215 0 60 711 9 175 1599 43 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)13.8 13.8 13.8 4.1 25.1 25.1 15.5 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s)13.8 13.8 13.8 4.1 25.1 25.1 15.5 36.5 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)286 326 305 109 1338 584 413 1945 851 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.20 c0.10 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 c0.15 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.24 0.71 0.55 0.53 0.02 0.42 0.82 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 22.5 22.0 24.4 30.3 16.1 12.9 21.7 12.3 6.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.4 7.2 18.5 0.4 0.0 3.2 2.9 0.0 Delay (s)23.2 22.3 31.6 48.8 16.5 12.9 24.8 15.2 6.9 Level of Service C C C D B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 22.7 31.6 18.8 15.8 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-117 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)71 0 131 70 0 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1671 1631 1805 3505 1615 1805 3494 Flt Permitted 0.83 0.62 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1409 1044 154 3505 1615 578 3494 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 173% 100% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 76 0 139 129 0 79 27 858 53 70 1829 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 31 0 0 0 17 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 198 0 0 177 0 27 858 36 70 1876 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 19% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.5 15.5 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 Effective Green, g (s)15.5 15.5 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)300 222 104 2374 1094 391 2366 v/s Ratio Prot 0.24 c0.54 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 c0.17 0.18 0.02 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.80 0.26 0.36 0.03 0.18 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 27.2 4.6 5.0 3.9 4.3 8.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 17.9 6.0 0.4 0.1 1.0 2.8 Delay (s)31.4 45.1 10.6 5.5 3.9 5.3 11.0 Level of Service C D BAAAB Approach Delay (s)31.4 45.1 5.5 10.8 Approach LOS C D A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.8 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-118 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 810 24 6 1873 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 74 0 14 0 827 42 11 1911 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2353 2801 956 1803 2759 413 1911 869 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1932 1932 827 827 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 420 869 977 1932 vCu, unblocked vol 2353 2801 956 1803 2759 413 1911 869 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 65 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h)65 103 259 210 103 594 307 784 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 88 413 413 42 11 956 956 Volume Left 0 74 0 0 0 11 0 0 Volume Right 0 14 0 0 42 0 0 0 cSH 1700 250 1700 1700 1700 784 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.35 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.56 0.56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 38 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D A Approach Delay (s)0.0 28.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-119 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 2021 25 105 1007 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1793 1567 1719 1770 3539 1539 1770 3539 1545 Flt Permitted 0.43 1.00 0.73 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)787 1567 1274 1770 3539 1539 1770 3539 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 100% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)91 68 59 68 52 178 143 2084 45 187 1038 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 44 00090018 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 159 11 0 254 0 143 2084 36 187 1038 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)23.0 23.0 23.0 17.0 70.0 70.0 15.0 68.0 68.0 Effective Green, g (s)23.0 23.0 23.0 17.0 70.0 70.0 15.0 68.0 68.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.58 0.58 0.12 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)151 300 244 251 2064 898 221 2005 876 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.59 c0.11 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.04 1.04 0.57 1.01 0.04 0.85 0.52 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 39.5 48.5 48.1 25.0 10.7 51.4 15.9 11.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 88.0 0.1 68.2 9.1 22.2 0.0 31.0 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)136.5 39.5 116.7 57.2 47.2 10.7 82.3 16.2 11.5 Level of Service F D F E D B F B B Approach Delay (s)110.3 116.7 47.1 25.7 Approach LOS F F D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-120 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)84 0 45 42 5 64 140 1221 48 21 640 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719 1646 1770 3539 1583 1805 3478 Flt Permitted 0.61 0.84 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1078 1410 352 3539 1583 141 3478 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 173% 100% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 88 0 47 76 9 117 147 2224 87 38 1165 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 10 0 0 0 23 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 108 0 0 192 0 147 2224 64 38 1238 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 100% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)13.9 13.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 Effective Green, g (s)13.9 13.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)198 259 250 2517 1126 100 2473 v/s Ratio Prot c0.63 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.14 0.42 0.04 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.74 0.59 0.88 0.06 0.38 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 29.3 5.4 8.5 3.3 4.3 4.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 10.9 9.8 5.0 0.1 10.6 0.7 Delay (s)31.1 40.2 15.2 13.5 3.4 15.0 5.6 Level of Service C D BBABA Approach Delay (s)31.1 40.2 13.2 5.9 Approach LOS C D B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.8 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-121 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 2234 36 3 1196 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 56 0 2280 64 5 1220 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2399 3574 610 2900 3511 1140 1220 2343 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1231 1231 2280 2280 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1168 2343 621 1231 vCu, unblocked vol 2399 3574 610 2900 3511 1140 1220 2343 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 24 100 71 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 107 59 437 39 68 195 567 207 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 86 1140 1140 64 5 814 407 Volume Left 0 30 000500 Volume Right 0 56 0 0 64 0 0 0 cSH 1700 114 1700 1700 1700 207 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.04 0.03 0.48 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 106 000200 Control Delay (s)0.0 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F C Approach Delay (s)0.0 98.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-122 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 1166 29 75 917 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1567 1699 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.64 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1186 1567 1560 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 100% 173% Adj. Flow (vph)26 15 68 55 20 153 94 1240 53 138 976 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 105 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 41 10 0 123 0 94 1240 26 138 976 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 10.1 9.2 28.2 28.2 15.3 34.3 34.3 Effective Green, g (s)10.1 10.1 10.1 9.2 28.2 28.2 15.3 34.3 34.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)183 241 240 248 1521 664 413 1850 809 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.35 c0.08 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 c0.08 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.04 0.51 0.38 0.82 0.04 0.33 0.53 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 24.3 23.6 25.5 25.6 16.4 10.8 20.9 10.3 7.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.8 4.4 3.5 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.0 Delay (s)24.9 23.7 27.3 30.0 19.9 10.9 23.1 10.6 7.6 Level of Service C C C C B B C B A Approach Delay (s) 24.2 27.3 20.2 12.0 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-123 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)80 0 80 26 0 37 90 697 31 20 551 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1695 1646 1805 3574 1615 1787 3528 Flt Permitted 0.79 0.80 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1375 1343 461 3574 1615 369 3528 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 173% 100% 173% 173% 173% 100% 173% 173% 173% 173% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 0 82 46 0 66 93 1243 55 36 983 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 0 0 56 0 0 0 14 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 110 0 0 56 0 93 1243 41 36 1069 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.5 10.5 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 Effective Green, g (s)10.5 10.5 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)206 201 340 2632 1189 272 2598 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.04 0.20 0.03 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.28 0.27 0.47 0.03 0.13 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 26.5 3.1 3.7 2.5 2.7 3.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.8 2.0 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.5 Delay (s)30.2 27.2 5.0 4.3 2.6 3.7 4.0 Level of Service C C AAAAA Approach Delay (s)30.2 27.2 4.3 4.0 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-124 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2018 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 1326 17 3 1045 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 25 0 11 0 1396 31 5 1100 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1814 2538 550 1957 2507 698 1100 1427 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1111 1111 1396 1396 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 703 1427 561 1111 vCu, unblocked vol 1814 2538 550 1957 2507 698 1100 1427 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 82 100 97 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 189 155 479 140 162 383 630 473 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 36 698 698 31 5 733 367 Volume Left 0 25 000500 Volume Right 0 11 0 0 31 0 0 0 cSH 1700 200 1700 1700 1700 473 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.02 0.01 0.43 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 16 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s)0.0 29.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-125 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 362 14 99 879 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1827 1607 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1012 1844 1567 1427 1607 1770 3539 1544 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)58 60 208 120 52 122 70 746 29 204 1812 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 94 0 0 99 0 0 17 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 60 114 0 172 23 70 746 12 204 1812 56 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 4.1 28.3 28.3 16.2 40.4 40.4 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 4.1 28.3 28.3 16.2 40.4 40.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 341 289 264 297 105 1445 631 414 2063 902 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.04 0.21 c0.12 c0.51 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 c0.12 0.01 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.18 0.40 0.65 0.08 0.67 0.52 0.02 0.49 0.88 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 23.8 24.8 26.2 23.4 31.9 15.4 12.2 23.0 12.3 6.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.9 5.7 0.1 28.8 0.3 0.0 4.1 4.6 0.0 Delay (s)25.4 24.1 25.7 31.8 23.5 60.7 15.7 12.2 27.1 17.0 6.3 Level of Service C C C C C E B B C B A Approach Delay (s)25.4 28.4 19.3 17.5 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.3 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-126 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 70 0 43 0 466 29 38 994 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1631 3505 1615 1805 3505 Flt Permitted 0.81 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1363 3505 1615 488 3505 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 150 0 92 0 1001 62 82 2136 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)00003000019000 Lane Group Flow (vph)0000212001001 43 82 2136 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 19% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)14.5 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s)14.5 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)265 2446 1127 341 2446 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.61 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.03 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.41 0.04 0.24 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 28.6 4.8 3.5 4.1 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 3.8 Delay (s)44.4 4.9 3.5 4.5 12.5 Level of Service D AAAB Approach Delay (s)0.0 44.4 4.8 12.2 Approach LOS A D A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.5 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-127 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 427 24 6 1056 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 87 0 16 0 880 49 12 2177 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2650 3131 1088 1993 3082 440 2177 930 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2201 2201 880 880 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 448 930 1113 2201 vCu, unblocked vol 2650 3131 1088 1993 3082 440 2177 930 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 51 100 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h)44 76 211 178 78 570 248 744 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 103 440 440 49 12 1451 726 Volume Left 0 87 0 0 0 12 0 0 Volume Right 0 16 0 0 49 0 0 0 cSH 1700 212 1700 1700 1700 744 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.49 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 60 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s)0.0 38.0 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-128 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 1120 25 105 539 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1838 1607 1770 3539 1539 1770 3539 1545 Flt Permitted 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)866 1844 1567 1403 1607 1770 3539 1539 1770 3539 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)106 79 69 79 60 208 167 2332 52 219 1122 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 167 0090019 Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 79 9 0 139 41 167 2332 43 219 1122 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 20.0 77.0 77.0 15.0 72.0 72.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 20.0 77.0 77.0 15.0 72.0 72.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 114 243 207 185 212 295 2275 989 222 2127 929 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.09 c0.66 c0.12 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.33 0.04 0.75 0.19 0.57 1.03 0.04 0.99 0.53 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 51.5 47.2 45.4 50.1 46.3 45.9 21.4 7.9 52.3 14.0 9.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 61.7 0.8 0.1 15.7 0.5 7.7 25.6 0.0 57.0 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)113.2 47.9 45.5 65.8 46.8 53.6 47.0 7.9 109.3 14.2 9.8 Level of Service F D D E D D D A F B A Approach Delay (s)74.5 54.4 46.6 29.0 Approach LOS E D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.8 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-129 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 42 5 64 0 1221 48 21 640 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1643 3539 1583 1805 3505 Flt Permitted 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1466 3539 1583 109 3505 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 89 11 136 0 2596 102 45 1361 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000700020000 Lane Group Flow (vph)0000229002596 82 45 1361 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 100% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.9 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 Effective Green, g (s)15.9 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)249 2635 1179 81 2610 v/s Ratio Prot c0.73 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.05 0.41 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.99 0.07 0.56 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 11.5 3.2 5.2 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 36.4 14.4 0.1 24.7 0.7 Delay (s)74.6 25.8 3.3 29.9 5.7 Level of Service E C A C A Approach Delay (s)0.0 74.6 25.0 6.5 Approach LOS A E C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.6 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-130 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 1243 36 3 648 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 35 0 66 0 2562 74 6 1336 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2662 3984 668 3242 3910 1281 1336 2636 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1348 1348 2562 2562 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1314 2636 680 1348 vCu, unblocked vol 2662 3984 668 3242 3910 1281 1336 2636 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 100 58 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h)74 40 401 26 49 156 512 158 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 101 1281 1281 74 6 890 445 Volume Left 0 35 000600 Volume Right 0 66 0 0 74 0 0 0 cSH 1700 69 1700 1700 1700 158 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.47 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 213 000300 Control Delay (s)0.0 378.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s)0.0 378.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 9.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-131 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 628 29 75 478 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1824 1607 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1291 1844 1567 1464 1607 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)30 17 80 64 24 178 110 1350 62 161 1027 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 153 0 0 28 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 17 11 0 88 25 110 1350 34 161 1027 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 10.1 30.1 30.1 15.1 35.1 35.1 Effective Green, g (s) 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 10.1 30.1 30.1 15.1 35.1 35.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.45 0.45 0.23 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 179 255 217 203 223 269 1604 700 403 1871 818 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.06 c0.38 c0.09 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.07 0.05 0.43 0.11 0.41 0.84 0.05 0.40 0.55 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 24.9 24.8 26.2 25.0 25.5 16.0 10.1 21.8 10.4 7.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.2 4.6 4.2 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.0 Delay (s)25.7 25.0 24.9 27.7 25.2 30.0 20.2 10.2 24.7 10.7 7.5 Level of Service C C C CCCCBCBA Approach Delay (s)25.1 26.1 20.5 12.4 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-132 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 26 0 37 0 697 31 20 551 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1646 3574 1615 1787 3574 Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1454 3574 1615 297 3574 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 54 0 77 0 1451 65 42 1147 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)00005300014000 Lane Group Flow (vph)000078001451 51 42 1147 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)8.2 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 Effective Green, g (s)8.2 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)158 2808 1269 233 2808 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.03 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.52 0.04 0.18 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 2.9 1.8 2.0 2.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.7 0.1 1.7 0.4 Delay (s)34.2 3.6 1.9 3.7 3.0 Level of Service C AAAA Approach Delay (s)0.0 34.2 3.5 3.0 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-133 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Background Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 720 17 3 552 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 13 0 1531 36 6 1174 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1186 1186 1531 1531 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 772 1567 600 1186 vCu, unblocked vol 1958 2754 587 2131 2717 765 1174 1567 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 74 100 96 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 168 133 453 116 141 346 591 417 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 43 765 765 36 6 782 391 Volume Left 0 30 000600 Volume Right 0 13 0 0 36 0 0 0 cSH 1700 165 1700 1700 1700 417 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.26 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 24 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s)0.0 37.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-134 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)28 29 101 58 25 59 34 802 14 99 1822 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 1607 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1333 1844 1567 1357 1891 1607 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 100% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)58 60 208 120 52 122 70 818 29 204 1859 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 95 0 0 102 0 0 17 0 0 27 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 60 113 120 52 20 70 818 12 204 1859 58 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 4.1 28.6 28.6 16.2 40.7 40.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 4.1 28.6 28.6 16.2 40.7 40.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.24 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 301 256 222 309 263 107 1491 651 422 2121 928 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.23 c0.12 c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 c0.09 0.01 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.20 0.44 0.54 0.17 0.08 0.65 0.55 0.02 0.48 0.88 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 24.6 25.6 26.1 24.4 24.1 31.2 14.8 11.5 22.2 11.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.3 1.2 2.7 0.3 0.1 27.1 0.4 0.0 3.9 4.4 0.0 Delay (s) 25.5 24.9 26.8 28.7 24.7 24.2 58.3 15.2 11.5 26.2 15.9 5.7 Level of Service CCCCCCEBBCBA Approach Delay (s) 26.2 26.1 18.4 16.5 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.9 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-135 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)71 0 131 70 0 43 25 466 29 38 994 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1671 1631 1805 3505 1615 1805 3495 Flt Permitted 0.82 0.62 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1397 1035 139 3505 1615 478 3495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 76 0 139 150 0 92 27 1001 62 82 2136 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 28 0 0 0 20 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 204 0 0 214 0 27 1001 42 82 2183 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 19% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)17.6 17.6 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 Effective Green, g (s)17.6 17.6 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)306 227 95 2388 1100 326 2381 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.62 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.21 0.19 0.03 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.94 0.28 0.42 0.04 0.25 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 30.8 5.1 5.7 4.2 4.9 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 43.6 7.4 0.5 0.1 1.8 7.0 Delay (s)34.1 74.5 12.4 6.3 4.3 6.8 17.9 Level of Service C E BAAAB Approach Delay (s)34.1 74.5 6.3 17.5 Approach LOS C E A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.3 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-136 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project AM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 42 0 8 0 934 24 6 2179 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 87 0 16 0 953 49 12 2223 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2733 3251 1112 2090 3201 477 2223 1003 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2248 2248 953 953 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 485 1003 1136 2248 vCu, unblocked vol 2733 3251 1112 2090 3201 477 2223 1003 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 48 100 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h)41 71 203 167 72 540 231 699 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 103 477 477 49 12 1112 1112 Volume Left 0 87 0 0 0 12 0 0 Volume Right 0 16 0 0 49 0 0 0 cSH 1700 199 1700 1700 1700 699 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.65 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 66 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s)0.0 41.9 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-137 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)51 38 33 38 29 100 80 2347 25 105 1164 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 1607 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1324 1844 1567 1256 1891 1607 1770 3539 1540 1770 3539 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 100% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)106 79 69 79 60 208 167 2420 52 219 1200 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 0 169 0080017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 79 8 79 60 39 167 2420 44 219 1200 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 20.0 77.0 77.0 15.0 72.0 72.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 20.0 77.0 77.0 15.0 72.0 72.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.66 0.66 0.13 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 150 209 178 142 214 182 302 2323 1011 226 2172 949 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.03 0.09 c0.68 c0.12 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.38 0.04 0.56 0.28 0.21 0.55 1.04 0.04 0.97 0.55 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 50.1 48.2 46.3 49.2 47.6 47.2 44.6 20.1 7.1 50.9 13.2 9.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.1 1.1 0.1 4.7 0.7 0.6 7.1 30.6 0.0 52.4 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 64.2 49.3 46.4 53.9 48.3 47.8 51.7 50.8 7.1 103.3 13.5 9.0 Level of Service E DDDDDDDAFBA Approach Delay (s)54.8 49.3 50.0 26.7 Approach LOS DDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 117.3 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-138 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)84 0 45 42 5 64 140 1221 48 21 640 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719 1643 1770 3539 1583 1805 3482 Flt Permitted 0.55 0.83 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)976 1389 275 3539 1583 113 3482 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 88 0 47 89 11 136 147 2596 102 45 1361 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 00700020040 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 114 0 0 229 0 147 2596 82 45 1436 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 100% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)16.0 16.0 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 Effective Green, g (s)16.0 16.0 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)171 243 203 2610 1167 83 2568 v/s Ratio Prot c0.73 0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.17 0.54 0.05 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.94 0.72 0.99 0.07 0.54 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 37.3 6.8 11.8 3.3 5.2 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 42.2 20.0 16.4 0.1 23.1 0.9 Delay (s)44.5 79.5 26.8 28.2 3.4 28.3 6.2 Level of Service D E C C A C A Approach Delay (s)44.5 79.5 27.3 6.9 Approach LOS D E C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.4 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-139 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project PM Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 17 0 32 0 2595 36 3 1384 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 35 0 66 0 2648 74 6 1412 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2782 4147 706 3366 4073 1324 1412 2722 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1425 1425 2648 2648 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1357 2722 718 1425 vCu, unblocked vol 2782 4147 706 3366 4073 1324 1412 2722 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 0 100 55 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h)65 35 378 23 44 146 479 146 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 101 1324 1324 74 6 941 471 Volume Left 0 35 000600 Volume Right 0 66 0 0 74 0 0 0 cSH 1700 59 1700 1700 1700 146 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 1.71 0.78 0.78 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 233 000300 Control Delay (s)0.0 494.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A F D Approach Delay (s)0.0 494.3 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A F Intersection Summary Average Delay 11.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-140 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Spring Valley Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14 8 37 30 11 83 51 1349 29 75 1056 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%)2%-3%0%0% Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1752 1844 1567 1796 1891 1607 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1368 1844 1567 1411 1891 1607 1770 3539 1545 1770 3539 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Growth Factor (vph) 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 100% 202% Adj. Flow (vph)30 17 80 64 24 178 110 1435 62 161 1123 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 70 0 0 155 0 0 26 0 0 22 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 17 10 64 24 23 110 1435 36 161 1123 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 2 2 1 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 10.0 31.2 31.2 15.0 36.2 36.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 10.0 31.2 31.2 15.0 36.2 36.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.47 0.47 0.22 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 235 200 180 241 205 265 1655 723 398 1921 840 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 0.06 c0.41 c0.09 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 c0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.07 0.05 0.36 0.10 0.11 0.42 0.87 0.05 0.40 0.58 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 25.6 25.6 26.6 25.7 25.8 25.7 15.9 9.7 22.0 10.2 7.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.2 4.7 5.1 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 26.4 25.8 25.7 27.8 25.9 26.0 30.4 21.0 9.7 25.1 10.7 7.1 Level of Service CCCCCCCCACBA Approach Delay (s) 25.9 26.4 21.2 12.3 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-141 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)80 0 80 26 0 37 90 697 31 20 551 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1695 1646 1805 3574 1615 1787 3534 Flt Permitted 0.76 0.79 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1315 1320 374 3574 1615 279 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 100% 202% 202% 202% 202% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 0 82 54 0 77 93 1451 65 42 1147 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 53 0 0 50 0 0 0 17 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 111 0 0 81 0 93 1451 48 42 1234 0 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.9 10.9 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 Effective Green, g (s)10.9 10.9 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)198 199 276 2641 1193 206 2611 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.06 0.25 0.03 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.41 0.34 0.55 0.04 0.20 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 27.8 3.3 4.2 2.5 2.9 3.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 1.4 3.3 0.8 0.1 2.2 0.6 Delay (s)32.2 29.2 6.6 5.0 2.6 5.1 4.4 Level of Service C C AAAAA Approach Delay (s)32.2 29.2 5.0 4.4 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.4 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group App. M-142 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Marand Rd & SH 82 10/25/2010 2030 Project Sat Mitigate Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 0 0 14 0 6 0 1535 17 3 1205 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0%0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 30 0 13 0 1616 36 6 1268 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type Raised Raised Median storage veh)2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2095 2933 634 2263 2897 808 1268 1652 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1281 1281 1616 1616 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 814 1652 647 1281 vCu, unblocked vol 2095 2933 634 2263 2897 808 1268 1652 tC, single (s)7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s)6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free %100 100 100 71 100 96 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 148 120 422 102 127 324 544 387 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 0 43 808 808 36 6 846 423 Volume Left 0 30 000600 Volume Right 0 13 0 0 36 0 0 0 cSH 1700 146 1700 1700 1700 387 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.50 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 28 000100 Control Delay (s)0.0 42.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A E B Approach Delay (s)0.0 42.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 App. M-143 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 APPENDIX D: SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS App. M-144 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 2592 121Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets YES Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2018 Background Period AM PeakComputed by AT Date 10/22/2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-145 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3255 73 2018 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions NO 0 100 200 300 400 500 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-146 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 2576 73 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2018 Background Period AM Peak Computed by AT Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets NO Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-147 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3276 29 2018 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions NO 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-148 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3026 141Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets YES Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2030 Background Period AM PeakComputed by AT Date 10/22/2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-149 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3801 85 2030 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions YES 0 100 200 300 400 500 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-150 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3002 0Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets NO Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2030 Background Period AM Peak Computed by AT Date 10/22/2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-151 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3826 0Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions NO 2030 Background Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-152 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 2592 121Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets YES Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2018 Background plus project Period AM PeakComputed by AT Date 10/22/2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-153 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3359 84 2018 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions YES 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-154 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y Y One Lane (Y/N)N N 2693 0 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2018 Background plus project Period AM Peak Computed by AT Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets NO Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-155 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y Y One Lane (Y/N)N N 3435 0 2018 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions NO 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-156 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3026 141Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets YES Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2030 Background plus project Period AM PeakComputed by AT Date 10/22/2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-157 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Cattle Creek Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y N One Lane (Y/N)N Y 3899 129 2030 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Cattle Creek Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions YES 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-158 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y Y One Lane (Y/N)N N 3113 0 Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Lane Conditions 2030 Background plus project Period AM Peak Computed by AT Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * Name of Streets NO Warrant Met *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-159 Cattle Creek Crossing Major Street Minor Street SH 82 Marand Rd Two or More Lane (Y/N)Y Y One Lane (Y/N)N N 3979 0 2030 Background plus project Computed by AT Period PM Peak Date 10/22/2010 Traffic Volume (VPH) * *Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volumes of Both Approches. Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach. Intersection Marand Rd & SH 82 Warrant Met Name of Streets Lane Conditions NO 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500Minor Street High Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street-Total of Both Approaches -Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 2 or More Lane & 2 or More Lane 2 or More Lane & 1 Lane 1 Lane & 1 Lane * * *Note: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. App. M-160 Traffic Assessment River Edge Colorado December 2010 APPENDIX E: PROGRESSION ANALYSIS App. M-161 AM Peak2018 w ProjectArterial and Link-Link Bandwidths, 90th Percentile Green Times10/25/2010BaselineCross StreetMain StreetApproachOffset20406080100120140160180200220240260280300320Rt IntLt ThDelays (s.)37 22 451 19 52551519 7 218SH 82SH 82@ Spring Valley Rd0SH 82@ Marand RdSH 82SH 82@ Cattle Creek Rd0NB Link Band 49 sNB Arterial Band 49 sSB Link Band 42 sSB Arterial Band 42 sLEGENDNB or WB Arterial BandwidthNB or WB Link BandwidthSB or EB Arterial BandwidthSB or EB Link BandwidthThru GreenNB or WB Left-Thru GreenSB or EB Left-Thru GreenDual Left GreenStarvation ThruStarvation LeftSpillback Uncoord ThruSpillback Uncoord LeftSpillback Coord ThruSpillback Coord LeftStorage Blocking ThruStorage Blocking LeftApp. M-162 PM Peak2018 w ProjectArterial and Link-Link Bandwidths, 90th Percentile Green Times10/25/2010BaselineCross StreetMain StreetApproachOffset20406080100120140160180200220240260280300320Rt IntLt ThDelays (s.)83 17 453 46 64766 1913 11 119SH 82SH 82@ Spring Valley Rd0SH 82@ Marand RdSH 82SH 82@ Cattle Creek Rd0NB Link Band 59 sNB Arterial Band 59 sSB Link Band 48 sSB Arterial Band 48 sLEGENDNB or WB Arterial BandwidthNB or WB Link BandwidthSB or EB Arterial BandwidthSB or EB Link BandwidthThru GreenNB or WB Left-Thru GreenSB or EB Left-Thru GreenDual Left GreenStarvation ThruStarvation LeftSpillback Uncoord ThruSpillback Uncoord LeftSpillback Coord ThruSpillback Coord LeftStorage Blocking ThruStorage Blocking LeftApp. M-163 AM Peak2030 w ProjectArterial and Link-Link Bandwidths, 90th Percentile Green Times10/25/2010BaselineCross StreetMain StreetApproachOffset20406080100120140160180200220240260280300320Rt IntLt ThDelays (s.)39 19 359 16 42272323 8 223SH 82SH 82@ Spring Valley Rd0SH 82@ Marand RdSH 82SH 82@ Cattle Creek Rd0NB Link Band 53 sNB Arterial Band 53 sSB Link Band 47 sSB Arterial Band 47 sLEGENDNB or WB Arterial BandwidthNB or WB Link BandwidthSB or EB Arterial BandwidthSB or EB Link BandwidthThru GreenNB or WB Left-Thru GreenSB or EB Left-Thru GreenDual Left GreenStarvation ThruStarvation LeftSpillback Uncoord ThruSpillback Uncoord LeftSpillback Coord ThruSpillback Coord LeftStorage Blocking ThruStorage Blocking LeftApp. M-164 PM Peak2030 w ProjectArterial and Link-Link Bandwidths, 90th Percentile Green Times10/25/2010BaselineCross StreetMain StreetApproachOffset20406080100120140160180200220240260280300320Rt IntLt ThDelays (s.)79 16 448 63 54779 1839 36 332SH 82SH 82@ Spring Valley Rd0SH 82@ Marand RdSH 82SH 82@ Cattle Creek Rd0NB Link Band 52 sNB Arterial Band 52 sSB Link Band 47 sSB Arterial Band 47 sLEGENDNB or WB Arterial BandwidthNB or WB Link BandwidthSB or EB Arterial BandwidthSB or EB Link BandwidthThru GreenNB or WB Left-Thru GreenSB or EB Left-Thru GreenDual Left GreenStarvation ThruStarvation LeftSpillback Uncoord ThruSpillback Uncoord LeftSpillback Coord ThruSpillback Coord LeftStorage Blocking ThruStorage Blocking LeftApp. M-165 Appendix N: Fiscal Impact Analysis Final Report River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Prepared for: Carbondale Investments Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. November 16, 2010 EPS #20813 App. N-2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................. 1 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION ......................................................................... 3 Project Description....................................................................................................3 Project Phasing and Absorption...................................................................................4 3. FISCAL MODEL .................................................................................................... 7 Methodology ............................................................................................................7 Revenue ................................................................................................................ 11 Expenditures.......................................................................................................... 19 Net Fiscal Impact.................................................................................................... 25 Net Fiscal Impact Comparison .................................................................................. 28 App. N-3 List of Tables Table 1 Development Program ......................................................................................3 Table 2 Housing Unit Forecast, Roaring Fork Valley..........................................................4 Table 3 River Edge Capture Forecast..............................................................................5 Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption............................................................................6 Table 5 Existing Conditions, Garfield County ...................................................................8 Table 6 Estimated Population........................................................................................9 Table 7 Construction Employment ............................................................................... 10 Table 8 Average Daily Population ................................................................................ 10 Table 9 Other Fiscal Assumptions ................................................................................ 11 Table 10 County Revenue, 2010 Budget......................................................................... 12 Table 11 Annual Building Permit and Plan Check Revenue ................................................ 13 Table 12 Sales Tax from Construction............................................................................ 14 Table 13 Property Tax Revenue..................................................................................... 15 Table 14 Household Sales Tax Revenue ......................................................................... 16 Table 15 Total Revenue ............................................................................................... 18 Table 16 County Expenditures, 2010 Budget................................................................... 20 Table 17 County Sheriff Expenditures ............................................................................ 22 Table 18 Total Expenditures ......................................................................................... 24 Table 19 Net Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................... 26 Table 20 Net Fiscal Impact, exclusive of Affordable Homes............................................... 27 Table 21 Net Fiscal Impact Existing Development vs. River Edge....................................... 29 App. N-4 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Final Report 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS River Edge is a 160-acre master-planned residential development located in Garfield County at the intersection of Highway 82, County Road 114, and County Road 113. The development is proposed to include 365 residential units, of which 55 units will be affordable, and a 6,000 square foot neighborhood center for use as a community amenity. As part of the ongoing entitlement process, Carbondale Investments has requested Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to conduct a fiscal impact analysis, evaluating the impacts of the proposed project on Garfield County revenues and operating costs. The intent of the analysis is to provide an estimate of the impacts of new development on County revenue and the corresponding demand for services over time. Summary of Findings 1. Based on projected growth in the Mid-Valley and estimated project capture of 25 percent, River Edge is projected to absorb just under 60 units annually. The Mid-Valley area of the Roaring Fork Valley is projected to add between 3,300 and 3,700 new housing units through 2025. At a project capture of 25 percent beginning in 2013, the 365 units are estimated to reach full absorption and buildout by 2019. 2. The proposed development generates 841 temporary annual construction jobs over the course of the development. Based on the estimated development costs and average construction wages in the County, the project generates 841 temporary construction jobs over the construction period. This figure represents the sum of annual employment. The peak annual employment during this period is estimated to be 141. 3. The proposed development results in an ongoing net fiscal impact of -$26,000 annually upon project buildout. Annual ongoing revenue is estimated at $438,000 in 2021 (two years after project buildout when property tax is fully realized). Annual ongoing expenditures are estimated at $464,000 in 2021. 4. The cumulative net fiscal impact including one-time revenue is positive $566,000. The project is expected to generate $1.2 million of building permit revenue during construction and $50,000 of sales tax revenue on locally-purchased construction materials. Summing one-time revenue with annual ongoing net fiscal impacts results in the cumulative net fiscal impact in 2021 (two years after project buildout) of $566,000. Holding all revenue and expenditures constant, the cumulative net fiscal impact will cover annual shortfalls for another 21 years, or through the year 2042. App. N-5 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Final Report 5. Excluding affordable units, the ongoing fiscal impact of the proposed development is neutral (positive $664 annually). The provision of affordable units is a requirement of the County. These units generate significantly less property and sales tax as a result of lower market values and household incomes. When affordable units are excluded, annual ongoing revenue offsets estimate annual ongoing expenditures. On a cumulative basis, including one-time revenue, the project generates a positive net fiscal impact of $716,000 and remains positive in perpetuity. 6. Comparing the fiscal impact of River Edge to 365 units of existing development, using average home prices and household size, the annual net fiscal impact to the County is $242,000 less, or on a unit basis $663 per unit less impactful to the County than the existing residential base. To determine the difference in impact between existing development and the proposed River Edge, EPS tested 365 units at the County-wide average home price and household size. The average revenues and expenditures generated by existing residential development were then compared to the proposed development. The fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generate an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000, compared to the -$26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for River Edge. This is a difference of $242,000 annually. On a per unit basis, the River Edge generates a burden of $72 per unit. This is $663 better than the current average cost of $735 per unit to the County. This demonstrates that while the River Edge has a negative impact on County finances, the impact is less negative than existing residential development in the County. App. N-6 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Final Report 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ABSORPTION Project Description River Edge is a 160-acre master-planned residential development located in Garfield County at the intersection of Highway 82, County Road 114, and County Road 113. The project abuts the Roaring Fork River and has been designed to provide trails, parks, and open space adjacent the river. The development team is proposing 365 new residential units and a 6,000 square foot neighborhood/community center to provide meeting and recreation space to the residents, as shown in Table 1. Included in the 365 units are 55 affordable garden homes. Table 1 Development Program River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type North South Total Size Estate (Detached)0 11 11 4,200 Town (Detached)49 46 95 2,800 Village (Detached)52 64 116 2,400 Attached 20 20 40 2,300 Garden Home 1 (Detached)30 18 48 2,300 Garden Home 2 (Aff. Detached)30 25 55 1,400 Subtotal 181 184 365 870,000 Neighborhood Center 6,000 6,000 Total 876,000 Source: Carbondale Investments; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]7-MKT Unit-Detail Development Program App. N-7 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Final Report Project Phasing and Absorption The project is located in the Roaring Fork Valley and will draw from future residential growth in Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and unincorporated areas of Garfield and Eagle Counties. As of 2010, the Mid-Valley area is estimated to contain 12,900 housing units. Based on historical residential building permit data, the area is projected to add approximately 220 new housing units annually over the next 10 to 15 years. In the near-term, projected new housing units will likely be lower than 220 units annually, while in the long-term, annual units will likely exceed this total. The timing of project phasing will be entirely dependent on the project’s competitive ability to capture future growth. EPS ran several iterations of potential project absorption scenarios in the Mid-Valley, as shown in Table 2. The first projection uses a base housing unit forecast for the Mid-Valley, beginning at 50 percent of historical totals and reaching 105 percent of historical production by 2014. The second projection represents a more optimistic forecast with future housing units beginning at 75 percent of historical averages and reaching 115 percent by 2014. New housing units between 2010 and 2015 for the Mid-Valley are estimated to total 851 with an additional 2,321 units expected to be added between 2015 and 2025. This represents annual growth of approximately 1.6 percent. Total new housing units under the optimistic scenario are forecasted to reach over 1,100 by 2015 with an additional 2,500 to be added by 2025. This represents annual growth of approximately 1.7 percent. Table 2 Housing Unit Forecast, Roaring Fork Valley River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Base Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Ann. % Total Ann. % Mid-Valley Housing Unit Projection % of Average Annual Activity ---50% 75% 100% 105% 105% 105% 105% Basalt 43 1,548 1,570 1,602 1,645 1,691 1,736 1,963 2,190 166 2.5% 454 2.3% Carbondale 60 2,343 2,373 2,419 2,479 2,543 2,606 2,923 3,240 233 2.4% 634 2.2% Glenwood Springs 31 3,865 3,880 3,903 3,934 3,966 3,999 4,160 4,322 119 0.8% 323 0.8% El Jebel 32 2,338 2,355 2,379 2,411 2,445 2,479 2,649 2,819 125 1.3% 340 1.3% Unincorporated Garfield 54 2,842 2,869 2,909 2,964 3,021 3,078 3,362 3,647 209 1.8%569 1.7% Housing Units 221 12,936 13,047 13,212 13,433 13,665 13,898 15,058 16,218 851 1.6% 2,321 1.6% Annual Change 111 166 221 232 232 232 232 Total Change 111 166 221 232 232 1,160 1,160 Cumulative New Units 111 276 497 729 961 2,122 3,282 Optimistic Recovery Scenario % of Average Annual Growth 75% 100% 110% 115% 115% 115% 115% Housing Units 221 12,936 13,102 13,323 13,566 13,820 14,074 15,345 16,616 1,138 1.7% 2,542 1.7% Annual Change 166 221 243 254 254 254 254 Total Change 166 221 243 254 254 1,271 1,271 Cumulative New Units 166 387 630 884 1,138 2,409 3,680 Source: U.S. Census; DOLA; Municipal and County Building Departments; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Models\[20813-Fiscal Model.xls]Market Capture Projection 2010-2015 2015-2025 The River Edge project is expected to capture a reasonable portion of regional growth. Considering current projects in the development pipeline, a reasonable capture rate of projected future growth is likely between 15 and 25 percent, as shown in Table 3. Applying these capture rates to each housing unit forecast results in a projected absorption by 2020 of 320 to 530 units for the base forecast and 360 and 600 for the more optimistic forecast. App. N-8 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Final Report Table 3 River Edge Capture Forecast River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description Capture 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Base Mid-Valley Unit Projection 111 166 221 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 2,122 Low Capture 15%17 25 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 318 High Capture 25%28 41 55 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 530 Optimistic Mid-Valley Unit Projection 166 221 243 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 2,409 Low Capture 15%25 33 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 361 High Capture 25%41 55 61 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 602 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Carbondale Investments Property Fiscal Analysis\Models\[20813-Fiscal Model.xls]Abs Unit To be reasonably conservative, EPS chose the higher capture rate of the lower (base) forecast, which projects 530 units to be absorbed by the project by 2020. Using the identified 365 unit development program, EPS developed a ten-year absorption schedule, as shown in Table 4. Housing construction is not anticipated to occur until 2013, absorbing a maximum of 58 units annually through 2019. The neighborhood center is not anticipated to be developed until 2017. App. N-9 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Final Report Table 4 River Edge Annual Absorption River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TotalEstate11 011Town15 18 16 18 7 21 095Village10 10 22 10 10 27 27116Attached10 10 0 10 10 0 040Garden Home 110 10 10 10 8 0 048Garden Home 210 10 10 10 10 555Subtotal0 0 0 55 58 58 58 56 53 27 0 365Cumulative0 0 0 55 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 365Neighborhood Center6,0006,000Cumulative0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Source: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]6-Abs Unit App. N-10 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Final Report 3. FISCAL MODEL This chapter summarizes the projected fiscal impacts of River Edge on Garfield County based on the development and absorption schedule identified in the previous chapter. The annual operating revenues and costs are evaluated and applied to the project’s annual development program. Case studies were developed to estimate revenue sources and expenditures where specific project-related data was available, while an average factor approach was utilized for all other revenue and expenditure items. Methodology The fiscal analysis evaluates the impacts of the project on estimates of revenues and expenditures provided in the 2010 County budget. EPS conducted a detailed budget analysis to gain an understanding of the structure of the County budget and to understand the types of services provided. The relevant major funds analyzed include: General Fund; Human Services Fund; Road and Bridge Fund; and Capital Expenditures Fund. These funds were considered the most relevant to the fiscal impacts of River Edge on the County. The funds not included, such as the Airport Fund, were determined to be less relevant to County-wide fiscal trends and new development. In addition, expenditure items that are too small were not included in this analysis. EPS also conducted a series of interviews with departmental staff to gain an understanding of current operations and to discuss ways additional growth may impact each department’s ability to maintain existing service standards. Information from the County’s 2010 Budget was used to quantify current revenues and costs. Revenues and costs are estimated and applied to the River Edge development program using one of the following methodologies: case study, per capita, per dwelling unit (DU), or per average daily population. The methodologies were applied to all relevant funds. A definition of each methodology is applied below: Case Study – This refers to a specific calculation of the costs or revenues derived from the project based on available data. Case studies were developed for revenues sources when refined calculation methods were available (e.g., real estate taxes). Per Capita – This is an average measure based on current per capita estimates of costs or revenues. This estimating technique is used when more detailed data is not available. Budget items are divided by the population served to derive an average cost or revenue estimate. A percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item’s relationship to new development growth. Per Dwelling Unit (per DU) – Similar to per capita calculations, this is an average measure based on current housing unit estimates of costs or revenues. Budget items are divided by the dwelling units served to derive an average cost or revenue per DU. A percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item’s relationship to new development growth. App. N-11 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Final Report Per Average Daily Population – Similar to per capita calculations, this is an average measure based on total population plus non-resident employees. Non-resident employees are estimated to have approximately half of the impact as full-time residents as these individuals are only in the County during the day. Budget items are divided by average daily population served to derive an average cost or revenue factor. A percent variable is also applied to represent the revenue or cost item’s relationship to new development growth. Existing (2010) demographic data was used to derive the average costs or revenue factors. As of 2010, the population of Garfield County is estimated at 59,032 persons, as shown in Table 5. The County services 23,080 housing units (DUs), of which approximately 21,808 are occupied. Average daily population in 2010 is estimated to total 63,005. Table 5 Existing Conditions, Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Garfield County Existing Conditions Factor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Housing Units 20,585 21,199 21,857 22,515 23,080 Households 19,555 20,317 21,032 21,274 21,808 Total Population 52,969 55,063 57,050 57,587 59,032 Employment 36,800 39,065 41,221 37,655 37,655 Non-Resident Employment (Commuters)1 32%8,066 8,617 9,076 7,946 7,946 Average Daily Employment2 50% 4,033 4,308 4,538 3,973 3,973 Average Daily Population 57,002 59,371 61,588 61,560 63,005 1Non-Resident Employment estimated as 32 percent of Wage and Salary Employment based on 3-year avg. of LEHD Census data 2Non-resident employees (commuters) are estimated to have an impact of 50 percent of full-time residents. Source: DOLA; BEA; BLS; LEHD on the Map Census Data; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]3-Existing Cond. Population and Housing Units Based on the estimated absorption schedule, EPS projected the number of new full-time residents anticipated to occupy the development. Because of the proposed mix of residential products, it is anticipated that the development will cater to local homeowners. However, it is likely that some units will be purchased by second homeowners. As a result, second- homeowners are anticipated to occupy 10 percent of all single-family homes, 25 percent of all attached homes, and 20 percent of garden homes. A second-home is estimated to spend approximately 60 days over the course of the calendar year in the County. Thus all second homes have the equivalency of 16 percent (60/365) of full-time homeowners. Single-family detached homes are estimated at three persons per unit, while attached units are estimated at 2.5 persons per unit. Based on the above, the proposed development is anticipated to add 953 new full-time equivalent residents at buildout, or by 2019 as shown in Table 6. App. N-12 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Final Report Table 6 Estimated Population River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type of Resident2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Total Housing Units0 0 055585858565327 0Total PopulationLocal Homeowner0 0 0 131 139 148 139 135 142 73 02nd Homeowner00077777640Total0 0 0 138 147 154 147 142 148 76 0Cumulative Housing Units00055 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 Cumulative PopulationLocal Homeowner0 0 0 131 271 418 558 693 835 908 9082nd Homeowner000714212835424545Total0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Persons/DU0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 2.52 2.57 2.56 2.55 2.59 2.61 2.61Source: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]12-Population App. N-13 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Final Report Employment To estimate new employment generated by construction, the development team provided an estimate of total construction costs, including housing and site development, of $128.2 million. Of this total, 70 percent is expected to be hard costs. Of hard costs, 50 percent is allocated toward materials with the remaining 50 percent representing labor, as shown in Table 7. EPS then divided estimated labor costs by the average annual wage of a construction employee in Garfield County, or $53,363. Total temporary employment over the course of construction is estimated at 841 annual jobs with an estimated peak of 141 jobs in 2017. Table 7 Construction Employment River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Total Construction Costs $0 $0 $3,499,968 $18,740,875 $19,790,875 $19,786,875 $19,663,604 $21,445,696 $17,544,166 $7,776,000 $0 $128,248,060 Hard Costs 70% $0 $0 $2,449,978 $13,118,613 $13,853,613 $13,850,813 $13,764,523 $15,011,987 $12,280,916 $5,443,200 $0 $89,773,642 Labor Costs 50% $0 $0 $1,224,989 $6,559,306 $6,926,806 $6,925,406 $6,882,261 $7,505,994 $6,140,458 $2,721,600 $0 $44,886,821 Annual Wage1 $53,363 Construction Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0 841 1BLS 2009 Average Annual Wage Construction Industry (23) Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]13-Const. Emp. Average Daily Population EPS estimated average daily population by summing total population and new non-resident employees generated by the project, both during construction, as well as upon buildout. At this time, no commercial uses are projected for the 6,000 square foot neighborhood center. As a result, average daily population upon buildout only includes projected full-time equivalent residents. Average daily population is estimated to total 953 upon project buildout and stabilization, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Average Daily Population River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Housing Units 0 0 0 55 113 171 229 285 338 365 365 Total Population 0 0 0 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953 Construction Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0 Total Employment 0 0 23 123 130 130 129 141 115 51 0 Average Daily Employment1 32% Non-Resident Emp. 50% 0 0 4 19 21 21 20 22 18 8 0 Average Daily Population 0 0 4 158 305 460 606 750 895 961 953 1US Census Average Commuting Employment (2006-2008). Commuters are estiamted to have 50 percent of impact of full-time resident. Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]14-Project Demo Table 9 shows other fiscal assumptions made in the analysis. The property tax assumptions are based on current State of Colorado rates, in which commercial property is assessed at a ratio of 29 percent and residential units at a rate of 7.96 percent. The subject property tax parcel has a mill levy of 57.075, of which 13.464 flows to the funds examined in this analysis. The 1.0 percent sales tax is subdivided and allocated to departments, funds, and/or other entities according to County funding thresholds, or which 0.45 percent is allocated to the County funds examined. App. N-14 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Final Report Table 9 Other Fiscal Assumptions River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Assumptions Assessment County Property Tax Ratio Commercial 0.2900 Residential 0.0796 Total Mill Levy 1 57.075 County Mills1 13.464 County Sales tax 1.000% Library 0.25% 911/Communications 0.19% Road and Bridge 0.26% Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02% Municipalities 0.09% Sheriff's Office 0.09% Public Health 0.09% 1 See Table 10 Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]2-Assump. Revenue Total General Fund Revenue for the County is estimated at approximately $52.4 million in 2010, as shown in Table 10. Revenue to the remaining funds is estimated at $16.6 million for Human Services, $25.0 million for Road and Bridge, $13.4 million for Capital Improvements, and $1.3 million for Public Health. As a new development in the County, the proposed project will generate additional revenue streams to each of these funds in the form of increased property tax, sales tax (point of sale and point of origin), specific ownership tax (automobiles), and charges for services. These revenues are divided into two major categories: one-time and ongoing revenues. One-time revenues are realized only during the construction period and include building permit and plan check fees as well as sales tax generated from locally-purchased construction materials. Ongoing revenues occur annually in perpetuity. EPS estimated additional revenue using case study methods where project-specific data was available. The methodology for each case study is outlined in the following section. All other revenue is estimated using a factor approach as defined in the Methodology section of this chapter. App. N-15 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Final Report Table 10 County Revenue, 2010 Budget River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Revenues Total Annual Revenues Forecasting Method Gross Multiplier Percent Variable Net Multiplier General Fund Taxes Property Tax $39,446,000 Case Study --- --- --- Sales Tax $1,644,000 Case Study --- --- --- Specific Ownership Tax $1,284,000 See Below --- --- --- Misc. Taxes $10,000 N/A --- --- --- Liscenses and Permits $5,000 N/A --- --- --- Intergovernmental 1 $1,729,000 N/A --- --- --- Charges for Services 2 Building Permits $500,000 Case Study --- --- --- Other Charges for Services $4,802,000 Per Capita $81.35 75% $61.01 Fines and Forfeitures $135,000 N/A --- --- --- Investment Earnings $1,508,000 N/A --- --- --- Contributions $867,000 N/A --- --- --- Miscellaneous Revenue $491,000 N/A --- --- --- Subtotal $52,421,000 Human Services Fund Taxes Property Tax $3,000,000 Case Study --- --- --- Specific Ownership Tax $161,000 See Below --- --- --- Intergovernmental 1 $13,305,000 N/A --- --- --- Investment Earnings $0 N/A --- --- --- Miscellaneous Revenue $162,000 N/A --- --- --- Subtotal $16,628,000 Road & Bridge Fund Taxes Property Tax $15,000,000 Case Study --- --- --- Sales Tax $3,027,000 Case Study --- --- --- Specific Ownership Tax $440,000 See Below --- --- --- Other Taxes $0 N/A --- --- --- Licenses and Permits $270,000 Per DU $11.70 75% $8.77 Intergov/State Highway User Fund $3,078,000 Per DU $133.38 75% $100.04 Charges for Services $5,000 N/A --- --- --- Contributions 3 $3,122,000 N/A --- --- --- Other $24,000 N/A --- --- --- Subtotal $24,966,000 Capital Improvement Fund Taxes Property Tax $12,000,000 Case Study --- --- --- Specific Ownership Tax $633,000 See Below --- --- --- Intergovernmental 1 $800,000 N/A --- --- --- Investment Earnings $0 N/A --- --- --- Subtotal $13,433,000 Public Health Fund Taxes Sales Tax $374,000 Case Study --- --- --- Intergovernmental 1 $710,000 N/A --- --- --- Charges for Services $192,000 N/A --- --- --- Other Revenue $1,200,000 N/A --- --- --- Subtotal $1,276,000 Specific Ownership Tax 5 $2,518,000 Per DU $114.60 100% $114.60 Total $108,724,000 1 Intergovernmental includes transfers and all grants (Federal, State & Local) 2 Includes Treasurer's fees & other fees. Building permit & plan check fees not counted here. 3 Contributions are from Chevron for a specific road project 5 Specific Ownership Tax distributions change yearly, so the revenue stream is treated alone in this fiscal analysis Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]4-Rev Factors App. N-16 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Final Report One-Time Revenue Where sufficient data was available, EPS utilized a case study approach to estimate future revenue. Building Permits and Sales Tax on Construction are both estimated using a case study approach. Building Permits Garfield County charges building permit and plan check fees for all new development in unincorporated areas. These fees are based on the estimated valuation of the building improvements. For example, for all building improvements with values exceeding $1.0 million, the County charges a base fee of $5,609 for the first $1.0 million in building improvements and $3.15 per $1,000 of valuation for all improvements exceeding $1.0 million. Plan check fees are charged as 65 percent of building permit fees. The development team provided estimated construction costs for each product type. Building permit and plan check fees at full buildout are estimated to exceed $1.2 million, as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Annual Building Permit and Plan Check Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis 1 Description BP&PC Charge 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total per Unit (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) Market Estate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,234 $0 $0 $0 $61,234 Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $59,245 $71,094 $63,195 $71,094 $27,648 $82,943 $0 $0 $375,220 Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $33,768 $33,768 $74,290 $33,768 $33,768 $91,174 $91,174 $0 $391,710 Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $0 $0 $0 $130,637 Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $32,659 $26,127 $0 $0 $0 $156,765 Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Affordable Estate $5,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Town $3,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Village $3,377 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Attached $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Garden Home 1 $3,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Garden Home 2 $2,009 $0 $0 $0 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $20,093 $10,046 $0 $0 $110,511 Neighborhood Center $6,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,260 $0 $0 $0 $6,260 Total $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $190,274 $190,237 $190,274 $207,789 $184,164 $91,174 $0 $1,232,336 Cumulative $0 $0 $0 $178,425 $368,699 $558,936 $749,209 $956,998 $1,141,162 $1,232,336 $1,232,336 $1,232,336 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Case-B&P Annual Sales Tax on Construction Materials purchased locally during the construction of the proposed development will generate new sales tax revenue to the County. Because Garfield County does not collect use tax, only materials purchased in the County will be subject to sales tax. Based on EPS’ discussions with the development team, an estimated 25 to 50 percent of materials could be purchased locally, most likely from the Lowes Home Improvement store in Glenwood Springs. To be conservative, EPS used the low end of the range, or 25 percent, as the estimate for locally purchased materials. Applying this factor to the estimated materials cost of $44.9 million results in a total of $11.2 million of locally purchased construction materials through buildout, generating $449,000 in total one-time sales tax dollars, as shown in Table 12. Of this total, $50,000 flows to relevant County funds. App. N-17 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Final Report Table 12 Sales Tax from Construction River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Total Construction Costs $0 $0 $3,499,968 $18,740,875 $19,790,875 $19,786,875 $19,663,604 $21,445,696 $17,544,166 $7,776,000 $0 $128,248,060 Hard Costs 70% $0 $0 $2,449,978 $13,118,613 $13,853,613 $13,850,813 $13,764,523 $15,011,987 $12,280,916 $5,443,200 $0 $89,773,642 Material Costs 50% $0 $0 $1,224,989 $6,559,306 $6,926,806 $6,925,406 $6,882,261 $7,505,994 $6,140,458 $2,721,600 $0 $44,886,821 Local Purchases 25% $0 $0 $306,247 $1,639,827 $1,731,702 $1,731,352 $1,720,565 $1,876,498 $1,535,115 $680,400 $0 $11,221,705 County Sales Tax Revenue Library 0.25%$0 $0 $766 $4,100 $4,329 $4,328 $4,301 $4,691 $3,838 $1,701 $0 $28,054 911/Communications 0.19%$0 $0 $574 $3,075 $3,247 $3,246 $3,226 $3,518 $2,878 $1,276 $0 $21,041 Road and Bridge 0.26%$0 $0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786 $0 $29,457 Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02%$0 $0 $57 $307 $325 $325 $323 $352 $288 $128 $0 $2,104 Municipalities 0.09%$0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520 Sheriff's Office 0.09%$0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520 Public Health 0.09%$0 $0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439 $638 $0 $10,520 Total Sales Tax 1.00%$0 $0 $3,062 $16,398 $17,317 $17,314 $17,206 $18,765 $15,351 $6,804 $0 $448,868 Total County Sales Tax 0.45%$0 $0 $1,378 $7,379 $7,793 $7,791 $7,743 $8,444 $6,908 $3,062 $0 $50,498 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]16-Case-Sales Tax Cont. Ongoing Revenue A case study approach was used to estimate property and sales tax generated by the project. All other ongoing revenue is estimated using a factor approach. Property Tax As a result of the proposed building improvements, new property tax revenue will be generated to Garfield County. A total of 57.075 mills per $1,000 of assessed value are applied to the subject property, as shown earlier in Table 7. However, only 13.464 mills will flow to the County Funds examined. Assessments take place at the beginning of every calendar year in Garfield County. Once a property is on the tax rolls, property tax is billed and paid the following year, resulting in a two-year lag from initial permitting to revenue collection. Residential property in Colorado is assessed at 7.96 percent of market value, while commercial property in is assessed at 29.0 percent of market value. Assessed value is estimated using market values provided by the development team and applying a 5.0 percent downward adjustment to account for typical appraised values. Assessment cycles occur every other year. As a result, new assessed value is generated one- year following construction. The assessed value of the subject property in 2014 is estimated to total $2.4 million, as shown in Table 13. Because property tax is billed and paid in the year following assessment, an increase in property tax revenue for buildings permitted in 2013 is not realized until 2015, totaling just over $136,000, of which $32,000 flows to the funds examined. Total property tax revenue generated by the subject development upon buildout is estimated at $965,000, of which $228,000 is collected by the relevant County funds. App. N-18 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Final Report Table 13 Property Tax Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Product TypeRate2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20211,000(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11)Total Assessed Value$0$0$0$0 $2,385,811 $2,563,669 $2,554,746 $2,728,969 $2,876,131 $2,565,333 $1,225,044$0Cumulative Assessed Value$0$0$0$0 $2,385,811 $4,949,480 $7,504,226 $10,233,196 $13,109,327 $15,674,660 $16,899,704 $16,899,704Total Property Tax57.075$0$0$0$0$0 $136,170 $282,492 $428,304 $584,060 $748,215 $894,631 $964,551Applicable Total113.464$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,538CountyGeneral Fund 7.742$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838Road & Bridge 2.861$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350Human Services 0.572$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667Capital 2.289$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683Retirement 0.191$0$0$0$0$0$456$945$1,433$1,955$2,504$2,994$3,228Subtotal13.655$0$0$0$0$0 $32,578 $67,585 $102,470 $139,734 $179,008 $214,037 $230,765RE-1 School DistrictGeneral21.868$0$0$0$0$0 $52,173 $108,235 $164,102 $223,780 $286,675 $342,773 $369,563Mill Levy Override2.823$0$0$0$0$0 $6,735 $13,972 $21,184 $28,888 $37,008 $44,250 $47,708RE-1 Bond6.293$0$0$0$0$0$15,014$31,147$47,224$64,397$82,497$98,641$106,350Subtotal30.984$0$0$0$0$0 $73,922 $153,355 $232,511 $317,065 $406,179 $485,664 $523,620Carbondale FireGeneral Fund5.91$0$0$0$0$0 $14,100 $29,251 $44,350 $60,478 $77,476 $92,637 $99,877Fire Bond1.319$0$0$0$0$0$3,147$6,528$9,898$13,498$17,291$20,675$22,291Subtotal7.229$0$0$0$0$0 $17,247 $35,780 $54,248 $73,976 $94,767 $113,312 $122,168Water & SanitationBasalt Water Conserv. 0.044$0$0$0$0$0 $105 $218 $330 $450 $577 $690 $744CO River Water Conserv. Dist0.166$0$0$0$0$0$396$822$1,246$1,699$2,176$2,602$2,805Subtotal0.210$0$0$0$0$0 $501 $1,039 $1,576 $2,149 $2,753 $3,292 $3,549Colorado Mtn. College 3.997$0$0$0$0$0 $9,536 $19,783 $29,994 $40,902 $52,398 $62,652 $67,548Library1.000$0$0$0$0$0 $2,386 $4,949 $7,504 $10,233 $13,109 $15,675 $16,900Applicable Total113.464$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,123 $66,640 $101,037 $137,780 $176,504 $211,044 $227,5381Includes All County Mills except RetirementNote: Taxes are billed and paid the following year of assessmentSource: Garfield County Assessor; Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]15-Case-Prop Tax$ App. N-19 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Final Report Sales Tax New residential development generates new sales tax revenue through retail purchases made in various locations throughout the County by new households moving into and occupying residential units. According to the US Census of Retail Trade, State of Colorado residents spend approximately 37.1 percent of their income on retail purchases. EPS estimates that 20 percent of these purchases will likely be made outside the County, with the remaining 80 percent representing local purchases. EPS estimated annual household incomes based on the anticipated unit prices of the 365 new residential units. Multiplying the estimated annual household incomes by the number of units and the estimated percent of local expenditures results in an estimate of new annual household retail spending in the County, as shown in Table 14. The resulting annual County retail expenditures from new households are estimated to total $15.7 million upon buildout. A detailed analysis of household expenditure potential is included in the full model. From these retail expenditures, the County applies a one percent sales tax which is divided among several departments. Total new annual sales tax revenue generated by the new households in the development is estimated to total $167,000 annually upon buildout. Total County revenue for the funds examined is estimated at $71,000 annually. Table 14 Household Sales Tax Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description Factor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) Annual Household Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $2,219,715 $4,605,709 $7,041,201 $9,427,196 $12,081,021 $14,531,163 $15,704,035 $15,704,035 County Sales Tax Revenue Library 0.25%$0 $0 $0 $5,549 $11,514 $17,603 $23,568 $30,203 $36,328 $39,260 $39,260 911/Communications 0.19%$0 $0 $0 $4,162 $8,636 $13,202 $17,676 $22,652 $27,246 $29,445 $29,445 Road and Bridge 0.26%$0 $0 $0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223 Road and Bridge for municipal work 0.02%$0 $0 $0 $416 $864 $1,320 $1,768 $2,265 $2,725 $2,945 $2,945 Municipalities 0.09%$0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 Sheriff's Office 0.09%$0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 Public Health 0.09%$0 $0 $0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 Total Sales Tax 1.00%$0 $0 $0 $22,197 $46,057 $70,412 $94,272 $120,810 $145,312 $157,040 $157,040 Total County Sales Tax 0.45%$0 $0 $0 $9,989 $20,726 $31,685 $42,422 $54,365 $65,390 $70,668 $70,668 Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]17-Case-Sales Tax (PO) App. N-20 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Final Report Total Revenue In sum, total revenue generated to the County is estimated at approximately $438,000 in 2021 (two years after buildout when new property tax is fully realized), as shown in Table 15. In addition, total one-time revenue is estimated at $1.3 million at final buildout. A breakout by fund is as follows: Total revenue generated to the County General Fund is estimated at approximately $204,000 annually in 2021. Total revenue generated to the County Human Services Fund is estimated at approximately $10,000 annually in 2021. Total revenue generated to the County Road and Bridge Fund is estimated at approximately $129,000 annually in 2021. Total revenue generated to the County Capital Expenditures Fund is estimated at approximately $39,000 annually in 2021. Total revenue generated to the County Public Health Fund is estimated at approximately $15,000 annually in 2021. Specific Ownership Tax, which is distributed across a number of funds, is estimated at $42,000 annually in 2021. App. N-21 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Final Report Table 15 Total Revenue River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type of FundTypeFactor2010 2011 2012 20132014 201520162017201820192020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)(Year 4) (Year 5)(Year 6)(Year 7)(Year 8)(Year 9)(Year 10) (Year 11)On-Going RevenueGeneral FundProperty Tax Case Study7.742 mills$0$0$0$0$0 $18,471 $38,319 $58,098 $79,225 $101,492 $121,353 $130,838Sales TaxOn-Site Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study0.09%$0$0$0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Misc. TaxN/A---------------------------------------Charges for ServicesPer Capita$61.01$0$0$0$8,429$17,376$26,790$35,737$44,421$53,480$58,147$58,147$58,147General Fund Subtotal$0$0$0 $10,510 $21,694 $51,862 $82,894 $113,844 $146,329 $174,362 $194,223 $203,707Human Services FundProperty TaxCase Study0.572 mills$0$0$0$0$0$1,365$2,831$4,292$5,853$7,499$8,966$9,667Human Services Fund Subtotal$0$0$0$0$0 $1,365 $2,831 $4,292 $5,853 $7,499 $8,966 $9,667Road & Bridge FundProperty TaxCase Study2.861 mills$0$0$0$0$0 $6,826 $14,160 $21,470 $29,277 $37,506 $44,845 $48,350Sales TaxOn-Site Sales TaxCase Study0.26%$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study0.26%$0$0$0 $5,827 $12,090 $18,483 $24,746 $31,713 $38,144 $41,223 $41,223 $41,223Other TaxN/A---------------------------------------Licenses & PermitsPer DU$8.77$0$0$0 $483$991 $1,500 $2,009 $2,501 $2,966 $3,202 $3,202 $3,202IntergovernmentalPer DU$100.04$0$0$0$5,502$11,304$17,106$22,908$28,510$33,812$36,513$36,513$36,513Road & Bridge Fund Subtotal$0$0$0$11,811 $24,386 $43,915 $63,824 $84,193 $104,199 $118,445 $125,784 $129,289Capital Expenditures FundProperty TaxCase Study2.289 mills$0$0$0$0$0$5,461$11,329$17,177$23,424$30,007$35,879$38,683Cap. Expenditures Fund Subtotal$0$0$0$0$0 $5,461 $11,329 $17,177 $23,424 $30,007 $35,879 $38,683Public Health FundSales TaxOn-Site Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Resident Expenditure Sales Tax Case Study0.09%$0$0$0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Public Health Fund Subtotal$0$0$0 $2,081 $4,318 $6,601 $8,838 $11,326 $13,623 $14,723 $14,723 $14,723Specific Ownership TaxPer DU$114.60$0$0$0 $6,303 $12,950 $19,597 $26,244 $32,661 $38,735 $41,829 $41,829 $41,829Subtotal On-Going Revenue$0$0$0 $30,705 $63,347 $128,801 $195,961 $263,494 $332,163 $386,864$421,404 $437,898One Time RevenueGeneral FundConstruction Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439$638$0$0Building & Planning Fee Revenue Case Study$0$0$0$178,425$190,274$190,237$190,274$207,789$184,164$91,174$0$0Subtotal$0$0 $287 $179,962 $191,897 $191,860 $191,887 $209,548 $185,603 $91,812$0$0Road & BridgeConstruction Sales TaxCase Study0.26%$0$0$804$4,305$4,546$4,545$4,516$4,926$4,030$1,786$0$0Subtotal$0$0 $804 $4,305 $4,546 $4,545 $4,516 $4,926 $4,030 $1,786$0$0Public HealthConstruction Sales TaxCase Study0.09%$0$0$287$1,537$1,623$1,623$1,613$1,759$1,439$638$0$0Subtotal$0$0 $287 $1,537 $1,623 $1,623 $1,613 $1,759 $1,439$638$0$0Cumulative One Time Rev.$0$0 $1,378 $187,182 $385,249 $583,277 $781,293 $997,526 $1,188,598 $1,282,833 $1,282,833 $1,282,833Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]20-Rev. All App. N-22 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Final Report Expenditures Total General Fund Expenditures for the County are estimated to total approximately $40.0 million in 2010, as shown in Table 16. Expenditures to the remaining funds are estimated at $3.0 million for Human Services, $20.2 million for Road and Bridge, $16.3 million for Capital Expenditures, and $483,000 for Public Health. All expenditures have been adjusted to exclude items paid for using grant revenue. The Capital Expenditures Fund represents a three-year average to compensate for any large expenditure made in a single-year, as well as excludes annual debt service for previous projects. The proposed development will generate additional expenditures to the County in the form of increased/enhanced County services. EPS estimated additional expenditures using a case study method where information was available. The methodology for each case study is outlined in the following section. All other expenditures are estimated using a factor approach as defined in the Methodology section of this chapter. App. N-23 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Final Report Table 16 County Expenditures, 2010 Budget River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Expenditures 2010 Budget 1,2 Forecasting Method Gross Multiplier Percent Variable Net Multiplier General Fund General $451,000 Per Capita $7.64 50% $3.82 BOCC O & M $710,000 Per Capita $12.03 75% $9.02 Discretionary Programs $2,630,000 Per Capita $44.55 50% $22.28 Assessor $2,080,000 Per DU $90.11 50% $45.06 Clerk & Recorder $1,983,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $31.47 50% $15.74 Treasurer $769,000 N/A --- --- --- Sheriff $18,040,000 Case Study --- --- --- Coroner $217,000 N/A --- --- --- Surveyor $51,000 N/A --- --- --- County Attorney $1,412,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $22.41 50% $11.21 County Manager $723,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $11.48 50% $5.74 Finance $1,082,000 Per Capita $18.33 50% $9.16 Human Resources $716,000 Per Capita $12.13 50% $6.06 Information Technology $1,368,000 Per Capita $23.17 50% $11.59 Purchasing $810,000 N/A --- --- --- Oil & Gas $532,000 N/A --- --- --- General Services $2,088,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $33.14 75% $24.86 Criminal Justice Services $2,517,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $39.95 50% $19.97 Building & Planning $1,581,000 Per DU $68.50 75% $51.38 County Engineer $268,000 Per Capita $4.54 50% $2.27 Public Health3 $0 N/A --- --- --- Fund Administration $0 N/A --- --- --- Total Expenditures $40,028,000 Human Services Fund $2,976,000 Per Capita $50.41 50% $25.21 Road & Bridge Fund $20,178,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $320.26 25% $80.06 Capital Expenditures Fund4 New Sheriff Vehicles $75,000 Case Study --- --- --- Other $8,743,000 Avg. Daily Pop. $138.77 75% $104.07 Total $10,837,000 Public Health Fund $483,000 Per Capita $8.18 50% $4.09 Total Expenditures $74,502,000 Note: Items that do not have a natural relationship with growth are not estimated 1 Rounded numbers 2Excludes Grant/Intergovernmental Revenue and Grant Expenditures 3 Public Health Fund now separate fund 4 Represents 3-year Average, excluding cost of new Sheriff Vehicles estimated in Sheriff Case Study and 2010 debt service Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River's Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model2.xls]5-Expend Factors App. N-24 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Final Report One-Time Expenditures The proposed development does not trigger any upfront capital expenditures to the County as all parks, open space, new roads and/or other facilities will be privately maintained by an HOA. However, the addition of 365 housing units will likely impact regional capital needs over the long-term. These long-term capital improvements are estimated as ongoing expenditures. Ongoing Expenditures The proposed development generates annual ongoing expenditures to the General Fund, Human Services Fund, Road and Bridge Fund, Capital Expenditures Fund, and Public Health Fund. The majority of these impacts are estimated using a factor approach. Where sufficient data is available, EPS utilized a case study approach to estimate future County Expenditures. While EPS typically estimates impacts to the Road and Bridge Fund using a case study approach, the proposed development is fully accessed by a state highway and all internal roads will be privately maintained. Therefore, impacts to the County Road and Bridge Fund will be minimal and are estimated using a factor approach. Anticipated increased expenditures by the Sherriff department are estimated using a case study approach. Sheriff The County Sheriff department will likely be directly impacted by the proposed development and warrants a detailed examination of expenditures. According to department data, the County received just over 26,000 calls for services in 2009. Based on a County population of just over 59,000, the annual call generation rate is estimated at 0.44 annual calls per person. As development absorption occurs, the subject development is anticipated to total 1,995 new residents which will generate an annual volume of 884 calls. The majority of departmental expenses will increase in line with annual calls, with the exception of the Jail which serves more regional needs. County patrol will likely be impacted the greatest by the proposed development, as additional staff time will be incurred in the form of overtime or new officer hires. The County currently has 32 full-time paid patrol officers, which translates to 0.001 officers per call. It is anticipated that additional staff will be covered through overtime of existing officers until the demand of a new officer is reached. Upon the need to hire a new officer (estimated at approximately 0.5 FTE), new training and equipment ($6,000) will be required, as well as a patrol vehicle at the estimated purchase price of $45,000. All new patrol vehicles are purchased in the Capital Improvements Fund and then transferred to the Motor Pool. Thus, the cost of a new patrol car is included in the Sheriff analysis for informational purposes only and is actually reflected in the Capital Improvements Fund. Patrol vehicles are replaced every five years. The Motor Pool charges the Sherriff Department $0.75 per mile for both operations and replacement. According to the department, patrol vehicles typically average 35,000 miles annually which is then applied to the incremental vehicle demand generated by the development. Motor Pool/Operations and Replacement costs are estimated to total $13,000 annually at buildout (0.48 vehicles at 35,000 miles annually). In sum, annual ongoing Sheriff expenses for this project are estimated to total $100,000, including $51,000 for operations, $36,000 for patrol staff, and $13,000 for vehicle maintenance and replacement, as shown in Table 17. App. N-25 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Final Report Table 17 County Sheriff Expenditures River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis DescriptionForecasting MethodFactor 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7) (Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10)Annual Call Volume26,163Average Daily Population63,0050 00 138 285 439 586 728 877 953 953Annual Call Volume Generated0.42Annual Calls Generated0 00 57 118 182 243 302 364 396 396Operations & MaintenanceGeneral OperationsPer Call $90.66$0 $0 $0 $5,201 $10,722 $16,531 $22,052 $27,410 $33,000 $35,880 $35,880Animal ControlPer Call $15.23$0 $0 $0 $874 $1,801 $2,777 $3,705 $4,605 $5,544 $6,028 $6,028Hazards Response TeamPer Call $0.73$0 $0 $0 $42 $86 $132 $177 $220 $264 $287 $287Emergency ManagementPer Call $10.45$0 $0 $0 $600 $1,236 $1,906 $2,543 $3,160 $3,805 $4,137 $4,137Fire SupressionPer Call $1.20$0 $0 $0 $69 $142 $220 $293 $364 $438 $476 $476JailNot Estimated ------------------------------------PatrolSee Below------------------------------------Search & RescuePer Call $0.55$0 $0 $0 $32 $66 $101 $135 $168 $202 $219 $219Victim AdvocatePer Call $1.36$0 $0 $0 $78 $160 $247 $330 $410 $494 $537 $537InvestigationsPer Call $0.59$0 $0 $0 $34 $70 $108 $144 $179 $216 $234 $234Professional StandardsPer Call $5.06$0 $0 $0 $291 $599 $923 $1,232 $1,531 $1,843 $2,004 $2,004Community RelationsPer Call $2.52$0$0$0$145$298$460$614$763$918$998$998Total O & M$0 $0 $0 $7,364 $15,181 $23,406 $31,223 $38,810 $46,725 $50,803 $50,803Patrol Staff ImpactsPatrol Officers 32Per Call 0.001Patrol Officers Needed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.480.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.48Salary + Benefits (40.0%) $75,200Staff Cost$0 $0 $0 $5,276 $10,877 $16,771 $22,372 $27,808 $33,479 $36,401 $36,401Training/Equipment1$6,000$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $0Patrol VehiclesExisting Patrol Vehicles 32Vehicles per Patrol Officer 1.00Vehicles Needed0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.45 0.48 0.48Vehicle Purchase Cost$45,000Vehicle Cost (Capital Expenditures Fund)1$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $0Annual Miles35,0000 00 2,456 5,063 7,806 10,412 12,942 15,582 16,942 16,942Vehicle Repair/Maintenance/Replacement$0.75$0 $0 $0 $1,842 $3,797 $5,854 $7,809 $9,707 $11,687 $12,706 $12,706Total Cost2$0 $0 $0 $14,482 $29,856 $46,031 $61,405 $76,324 $91,891 $105,910 $99,9101One-Time capital costs for both Training/Equipment and Vehicle Purchase are only reflected when staff/vehicles exceed one2Excludes Vehicle Costs, New Vehicles are purchased (and reflected) in the Capital Expenditures FundSource: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]21-Case-Police App. N-26 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Final Report Total Expenditures In sum, annual expenditures to be incurred by the County are estimated at approximately $464,000 in 2021 (two years after buildout), as shown in Table 18. A breakout by Fund is as follows: Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County General Fund are estimated to total approximately $261,000 in 2021. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Human Services Fund are estimated to total approximately $24,000 in 2021 Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Road and Bridge Fund are estimated to total approximately $76,000 in 2021. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the County Capital Expenditures Fund are estimated to total approximately $99,000 in 2021. Annual expenditures to be incurred by the Public Health Fund are estimated to total approximately $4,000 in 2021. App. N-27 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Final Report Table 18 Total Expenditures River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Type of ExpenseFactor2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 10) (Year 11)General FundGeneral Per Capita $3.82 $0 $0 $0 $528 $1,088 $1,677 $3,641 $3,641BOCCO & MPer Capita $9.02$0 $0 $0 $1,246 $2,569 $3,961 $8,597 $8,597Discretionary Programs Per Capita $22.28$0 $0 $0 $3,077 $6,344 $9,781 $21,230 $21,230AssessorPer DU$45.06$0 $0 $0 $2,478 $5,091 $7,705 $16,446 $16,446Clerk & RecorderAvg. Daily Pop. $15.74$0 $0 $57 $2,480 $4,805 $7,233 $14,998 $14,998TreasurerN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---SheriffCase Study ---$0 $0 $0 $14,482 $29,856 $46,031 $99,910 $99,910CoronerN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---SurveyorN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---County AttorneyAvg. Daily Pop. $11.21$0 $0 $41 $1,766 $3,422 $5,151 $10,679 $10,679County ManagerAvg. Daily Pop. $5.74$0 $0 $21 $904 $1,752 $2,637 $5,468 $5,468FinancePer Capita $9.16$0 $0 $0 $1,266 $2,610 $4,024 $8,734 $8,734Human ResourcesPer Capita $6.06$0 $0 $0 $838 $1,727 $2,663 $5,780 $5,780Information Technology Per Capita $11.59$0 $0 $0 $1,601 $3,300 $5,088 $11,043 $11,043PurchasingN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---Oil & GasN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---General ServicesAvg. Daily Pop. $16.57$0 $0 $60 $2,612 $5,060 $7,616 $15,792 $15,792Criminal Justice Services Avg. Daily Pop. $19.97$0 $0 $73 $3,148 $6,099 $9,181 $19,037 $19,037Building & PlanningPer DU$51.38$0 $0 $0 $2,826 $5,805 $8,785 $18,752 $18,752County EngineerPer Capita $2.27$0 $0 $0 $125 $257 $388 $829 $829Public Health3N/A------ --- ------------ --- ---Fund AdministrationN/A------ --- ------------ --- ---Total$0 $0 $252 $39,377 $79,785 $121,923 $260,936 $260,936Human Services FundPer Capita $25.21$0 $0 $0 $3,482 $7,179 $11,068 $24,023 $24,023Road & Bridge FundAvg. Daily Pop. $80.06$0 $0 $291 $12,619 $24,448 $36,802 $76,306 $76,306Capital Expenditures FundNew Sheriff VehiclesCase Study ---$0 $0 $0$0$0$0 $0 $0OtherAvg. Daily Pop. $104.07$0 $0 $378 $16,403 $31,779 $47,838 $99,189 $99,189Total$0 $0 $378 $16,403 $31,779 $47,838 $99,189 $99,189Public Health FundPer Capita $4.09$0 $0 $0 $565 $1,165 $1,796 $3,899 $3,899Total Expenditures$0 $0 $921 $72,447 $144,356 $219,427 $464,354 $464,354Source: Garfield County Finance Dept.; Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]21-Exp. All App. N-28 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Final Report Net Fiscal Impact In sum, annual revenue and expenditures result in a negative net fiscal impact to the County of approximately $26,000 after full buildout and stabilization in 2021, as shown in Table 19. Including total one-time revenue from building permits and sales tax from construction, the cumulative net fiscal impact is estimated to be a positive of $566,000. Affordable housing is a requirement of the County because it benefits the community in a number of ways. While these benefits are important and valuable contributions to the County, affordable housing does not generate fiscally the same level of benefit as market rate home. This is a result of lower market values (property tax) and lower household incomes generating lower household retail expenditures (sales tax). Examining the fiscal impacts of the proposed development without the required 55 affordable homes, or in other words the net fiscal impact of just the 310 market-rate homes alone, results in an ongoing fiscally neutral residential development upon buildout ($372 annually), as shown in Table 20. The cumulative net impact, including one-time revenue, is estimated at a positive $715,000. App. N-29 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Final Report Table 19 Net Fiscal Impact River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)(Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7)(Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11)Ongoing Net Fiscal ImpactOngoing Revenues $0 $0 $0 $30,705 $63,347 $128,801 $195,961 $263,494 $332,163 $386,864 $421,404 $437,898Ongoing Expenditures $0$0($921)($72,447)($144,356)($219,427)($291,027)($360,986)($431,926)($517,400)($464,354)($464,354)Net Fiscal Impact$0 $0 ($921) ($41,742) ($81,009) ($90,626) ($95,067) ($97,491) ($99,763) ($130,535) ($42,950) ($26,456)One-Time Net Fiscal Impact1One-Time Revenues$0 $0 $1,091 $184,267 $196,443 $196,405 $196,403 $214,474 $189,633 $93,598 $0$0Annual Balance$0 $0 $170 $142,524$115,434 $105,779 $101,337 $116,982 $89,870 ($36,937) ($42,950) ($26,456)Total Cum. Balance$0 $0 $170 $142,695 $258,129 $363,908 $465,244 $582,227 $672,096 $635,159 $592,209 $565,7541One-Time Revenue includes Building Permit and Plan Check revenue and Sales Tax on locally purchased construction materialsSource: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]1-Summary App. N-30 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Final Report Table 20 Net Fiscal Impact, exclusive of Affordable Homes River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021(Year 0) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)(Year 4) (Year 5) (Year 6) (Year 7)(Year 8) (Year 9) (Year 10) (Year 11)Ongoing Net Fiscal ImpactOngoing Revenues $0 $0 $0 $25,926 $53,789 $111,898 $171,712 $231,901 $295,614 $347,750 $381,007 $397,501Ongoing Expenditures $0$0($887)($59,831)($119,517)($182,366)($241,737)($299,563)($364,597)($399,175)($397,129)($397,129)Net Fiscal Impact$0 $0 ($887) ($33,906) ($65,729) ($70,468) ($70,025) ($67,662) ($68,983) ($51,425) ($16,122) $372One-Time Net Fiscal Impact1One-Time Revenues$0 $0 $1,051 $163,708 $175,884 $175,846 $175,838 $194,014 $179,463 $93,598 $0$0Annual Balance$0 $0 $164 $129,802 $110,156 $105,378 $105,813 $126,352 $110,480 $42,173 ($16,122) $372Total Cum. Balance$0 $0 $164 $129,966 $240,122 $345,500 $451,312 $577,665 $688,145 $730,318 $714,195 $714,5671One-Time Revenue includes Building Permit and Plan Check revenue and Sales Tax on locally purchased construction materialsSource: Economic & Planning SystemsH:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3.xls]1-Summary App. N-31 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Final Report Net Fiscal Impact Comparison In order to bring greater understanding to the net fiscal impact identified in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis, it is important to compare project fiscal results to the ongoing impacts of existing development on County revenues and expenditures. Any fiscal analysis of solely residential development is limited because it does not include the offset of County revenues generated from commercial property elsewhere in the County. These revenues include property tax on commercial development (assessed at approximately three times the rate of residential), taxes and fees related to oil and gas extraction, and inflows of retail sales tax expenditure from outside the County. These inflows primarily reflect sales tax on household expenditures made by residents from Pitkin and Eagle County. Over time, the County has maintained net positive fiscal balance – notwithstanding the net negative impact of residential development – based on these and other dollar flows related to commercial development. Similar to other counties in Colorado, these revenues offset the service impacts to County operations from residential uses. The purpose of the following analysis is to show the degree of impact from the proposed development relative to the impact from the existing residential base of Garfield County. While both are negative, the analysis is helpful as it quantifies the degree of impact and provides a good method to compare service impacts of existing development to service impacts of proposed development. It should be noted in years of negative revenue changes, Garfield County is able to achieve fiscal solvency with annual adjustments to service levels. The methodology applied in this analysis assumes constant levels of service. The fiscal impact of River Edge differs from existing development in four distinct ways: Average Household Size - The average household size in Garfield County is estimated to be 2.71, using base estimates from the State demographer forecasted to 2010. This is slightly higher than the average household size projected for River Edge of 2.61 persons per household. Property Tax - Based on 2009 data from the County Assessor’s office, the average assessed value of a residential unit in Garfield County is $29,390 (based on an estimated $389,000 market value). The average home price at River Edge, including affordable housing, is anticipated to be $606,000. This results in an average assessed value of $46,000. This significantly higher than existing development and will generate substantially more annual property tax Sales Tax - As a result of higher home values, residents at River Edge are estimated to have higher incomes. Residents, in turn, are anticipated to spend more on retail goods in the County than average residents of existing development, generating more sales tax per unit. Road and Bridge Impact - As mentioned in the earlier analysis, River Edge has minimal impact on County-serviced roads. The proposed development is not located on a County- serviced road and primary routes to retail or employment centers are all serviced by state and federal highways. As a result, residents entering or leaving the proposed App. N-32 River Edge Fiscal Analysis November 16, 2010 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Final Report development will not frequently utilize County roads and all interior roads will be privately maintained. Existing development is scattered throughout the County on a variety of County-serviced roads and will almost necessarily have a greater impact on County Road and Bridge than River Edge. As a result, a variability factor of 50 percent (vs. 25 percent) is applied to existing development. Comparison Results To determine the difference in impact between existing development and the proposed River Edge development, EPS tested 365 units at the County-wide average home price and household size, utilizing a slightly higher Road and Bridge Impact factor, and compared the results with the fiscal impact identified in the River Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis. Generally, revenues from River Edge are 48 percent higher and expenditures are 18 percent lower. Considering the above, the fiscal impact of 365 units of existing development generates an annual fiscal impact of -$268,000 under the applied methodology, as shown in Table 21. This figure is substantially more negative than the -$26,000 annual fiscal impact (including affordable housing) identified for River Edge (a difference of $242,000 annually). On a per unit basis, existing residential development costs the County an estimated $735 versus $72 annually for River Edge. This is a difference of $663 annually, reflecting the greater expense expected for existing residential uses. This demonstrates that while the River Edge has a negative impact on County finances, the impact is less than existing residential development in the County. Table 21 Net Fiscal Impact Existing Development vs. River Edge Rivers Edge Fiscal Impact Analysis Description Existing River Edge $% 365 Residential Units Ongoing Net Fiscal Impact Ongoing Revenues $296,786 $437,898 $141,112 48% Ongoing Expenditures ($565,181)($464,354)$100,827 -18% Net Fiscal Impact ($268,395) ($26,456) $241,939 -90% Per Unit Ongoing Net Fiscal Impact Ongoing Revenues $813 $1,200 $387 48% Ongoing Expenditures ($1,548)($1,272)$276 -18% Net Fiscal Impact ($735) ($72) $663 -90% Source: Economic & Planning Systems H:\20813-Garfield County River Edge Fiscal Analysis\Phase II\[20813-Fiscal Model3ExistingDev.xls]1-Summary Difference The estimates for existing residential development are likely conservative, as home prices in the County have likely dropped from 2009 (established in 2008) data. In addition, the actual reported average household income for the county ($80,000) is less than projected household income under the current methodology (based on 30 percent of household income allocated to annual housing costs). App. N-33 Appendix O: Letter Concerning CRS 341-1-301 ET SEQ App. O-2 Appendix P: Assessment of Commercial Minerals App. P-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION.....................................................................................................3 Project Location............................................................................................................................ 3 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 3 STUDY OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................... 3 SITE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................................4 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................................. 4 Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................................................... 4 Topography................................................................................................................................... 5 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................... 5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND FIELD INVESTIGATION.......................................................................... 5 Previous Studies............................................................................................................................ 5 Field Reconnaissance.................................................................................................................... 6 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................ 6 General Geology...........................................................................................................................6 Soil Conditions .............................................................................................................................7 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................................... 7 NATURAL RESOURCE DATA - GARFIELD COUNTY.......................................................................7 RECOVERABLE RESOURCES............................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS......................................................................................................... 8 CLOSING.................................................................................................................................................. 9 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 10 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................... 1 Aerial Photograph of Site.............................................................................................................. 2 Aggregate, Sand & Gravel Potential, General .............................................................................. 3 Aggregate, Sand & Gravel Potential, Roaring Fork Detail ............................................................ 4 Gas and Oil Well Locations, County Wide................................................................................... 5 ATTACHMENTS Garfield County letter dtd August 18, 2010.................................................................................... RMG Engineers Group - 2 - App. P-3 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Project Description River Edge Colorado is a proposed residential development comprised of approximately 160 acres lying between the Roaring Fork River and Hwy 82 in Garfield County, Colorado. The property is currently occupied by one single family home and has been previously utilized for agricultural purposes. Although portions of the property are intended to be sold prior to making application to Garfield County for land use approvals required for River Edge Colorado, as of the date preparation of this report, the proposed development lies within a larger 281-acre parcel owned by Carbondale Investments, LLC. This report addresses the entire 281-acre parcel. The proposed development will generally consist of installation of underground utilities, overlot grading, construction of residential streets and construction of detached and attached residential structures and community facilities. Project Location The project lies in portions of Sections 7 and 18 Township 7 South, Range 88 West and Sections 1 and 12 Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado. The site is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the Town of Carbondale. The site is bounded on the east by Hwy 82 and on the west by the Roaring Fork River. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1 (Ref. 1). An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2 (Ref.1). STUDY OVERVIEW The purpose of this study is to review available geologic information and existing mapping of commercial mineral resources to develop an opinion regarding the presence, if any, of such resources on the subject property and determine their commercial viability under C.R.S. 34-1-301 et seq. This report has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review (Rezoning) and Subdivision Review (Preliminary Plan) for the proposed River Edge Colorado development in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR), as Amended. The Analysis specifically addresses the requirements of Section 5-502.E of the ULUR and C.R.S. 34-1-301 et seq., as requested by Kathy Eastley in a letter dated August 18, 2010 and attached hereto. RMG Engineers Group - 3 - App. P-4 C.R.S. 34-1-305(1) states in pertinent part that no board of county commissioners shall by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction or such deposit by an extractor. A “Commercial mineral deposit” means a natural mineral deposit of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel, and quarry aggregate, for which extraction by an extractor is or will be commercially feasible and regarding which it can be demonstrated by geologic, mineralogic, or other scientific data that such deposit has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation. Although requested by Garfield County staff pursuant to C.R.S. 34-1-302(3) the provisions of C.R.S. 34-1-302 are only applicable to populous counties. A “populous county of populous counties of the state” means any county or city and county having a population of sixty-five thousand inhabitants or more according to the latest federal decennial census. As of the rezoning of the property to Residential Suburban in 2008, Garfield County had a population less than 65,000 according to the 2010 census. Although the 2010 census has not been issued to date, current estimates by the State of Colorado (Department of Local Affairs) and U.S. Census Bureau indicate that Garfield County’s population is still below the minimum threshold for when these specific statutory provisions apply. SITE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES The information included in this report has been compiled from field reconnaissance, review of available reports of previous studies conducted at the site, geologic research and analysis, a of maps of the site, including natural resource maps compiled and produced by Garfield County, and a review of surficial deposits in Garfield County. SITE CONDITIONS Land Use and Zoning The site is identified as Parcel Number 239318200102 in Unincorporated Garfield County. The site was zoned “Residential/Suburban in 2008 by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners under Resolution 2008-112. As such, Garfield County has already taken action to zone the property for use which would prohibit extraction. Such action was consistent with C.R.S. 34-1-301 et seq. since the RMG Engineers Group - 4 - App. P-5 provisions of the statute were not applicable. In addition, if the 2010 Census showed that the population of Garfield County exceeds 65,000 persons the zoning would stand as an applicable and allowable use of the property. Topography In general, the site slopes gently to the north and west with a relatively steep escarpment along the westerly boundary dropping down to the river terrace of the Roaring Fork River. Vegetation Most of the site consists of native grasses, weeds, cacti and trees and appears to be denser in the westerly portion near the river terrace. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND FIELD INVESTIGATION Previous Studies Reports of previous geotechnical engineering/geologic investigations for this site were reviewed and are listed below. 1. Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed River Edge Colorado PUD and Preliminary Plan Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 110 337A, November 10, 2010. 2. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook – 2007, Colorado [Advance Release], U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, September, 2010 3. Update of Sinkhole Setback Information, Proposed Cattle Creek Crossing Project, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, November 30, 2007. 4. Geotechnical Review of Proposed Grading and Erosion Plan along Highway 82, River Bend Development, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, August 30, 2007. 5. Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed River Bend Development, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, July 17, 2007. 6. Summary of Subsurface Exploration, Proposed River Bend Development, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, June 11, 2007. RMG Engineers Group - 5 - App. P-6 7. Summary of Subsurface Exploration, Proposed Bair Chase Development, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 101 586, December 21, 2001. 8. Phase 1 Geologic Investigation, Sanders Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado, CTL/Thompson, Inc., Job No. GS-1888, July 26, 1996. The findings, analyses and conclusions contained in these reports were considered during the preparation of this report. Field Reconnaissance Site observations were conducted on June 15th and October 12th, 2010 by Nathan Dowden of RMG. Based on our observations, it appears that significant site grading excavation has been previously completed. Visual evaluation of existing site contours and topography compared to the original topographic information presented in the above-referenced reports noted that a considerable amount of the surficial soils appear to have been excavated and either stock-piled on site or transported as “borrow” material elsewhere. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Geology Based on the information presented in the HP Geotech reports, the geology of the site is described as Pleistocene (10,000 to 1.8 million year old) and Holocene (less than 10,000 year old) deposits of clays, silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders overlying the Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock. Review of the Geologic Map of The Cattle Creek Quadrangle (Ref. 4) notes the following surficial deposits mapped on this site: Qa – Stream-channel, flood-plain, and low terrace deposits (Holocene and Late Pleistocene) Qty – Younger terrace alluvium (late Pleistocene) Qtm – Intermediate terrace alluvium (late Pleistocene) Qc – Colluvium (Holocene and late Pleistocene) Qdfy – Younger debris flow deposits (Holocene) Qac – Alluvium and colluvium, undivided (Holocene) The bedrock underlying the surficial soils is noted to be (Ref. 4): IPee – Eagle Valley Evaporite (Middle Pennsylvanian) RMG Engineers Group - 6 - App. P-7 The surficial deposits are consistent with the information presented on the Surficial Geology Map prepared by Garfield County shown on Fig. 4 (Ref. 5). Soil Conditions As noted in the HP Geotech reports, “…The subsoils encountered throughout the development area typically consist of topsoil and fine-grained soils overlying relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel alluvium containing cobbles and boulders. Siltstone /claystone and gypsum bedrock was encountered between 32 and 112 feet below the ground surface….” (HP Geotech, 7/17/07) Based on our field reconnaissance and review of the referenced data, it is our opinion that this is a generally accurate characterization of the site geology and subsurface soil materials. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was reportedly encountered in the soil borings by HP Geotech during their previous field investigations. The groundwater was encountered at depths as shallow as 8 feet and varying to approximately 40 to 80 feet below the ground surface at the time of the previous soil borings. NATURAL RESOURCE DATA - GARFIELD COUNTY As a component of this study, we have reviewed and incorporated mineral resource data and mapping compiled and produced by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department. Specifically, we incorporated pertinent information presented in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, adopted November 10, 2010 (Ref. 4). County-wide aggregate, sand and gravel potentials are presented in Figure 3. Figure 4 presents aggregate, sand and gravel potentials in the Roaring Fork river valley. Gas and oil well locations throughout Garfield County are presented in Figure 5. RECOVERABLE RESOURCES Based upon review of the data and maps referenced above, surficial soils throughout the proposed development area have been mapped as clays, silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and RMG Engineers Group - 7 - App. P-8 boulders. These materials are generally considered suitable for use as interior and exterior backfill, but are considered to be an uneconomical industrial resource due to the current zoning of the property,. developing residential and commercial uses surrounding the property, natural resources values associated with Conservation Easement along Castle Creek and Roaring Fork River, the proximity to and dissection of the site by the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) right-of-way which is used as a apart of the Rio Grande recreational trail and preserved by the RFTA and Public Utilities Commission as a rail corridor and the potential presence of groundwater as indicated in the HP Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations. It is our opinion that more economical sources of sands, gravels and quarry aggregate for industrial/commercial mineral extraction are available elsewhere within Garfield County. As a result, in terms of commercial viability, these deposits have limited potential viability when considered within the context of Garfield County’s overall resources and development. The on site deposit does not constitute a deposit that has significant economic or strategic value to the area, state, or nation. The data does not indicate that limestone or coal are located on the property. CONCLUSIONS Based on our field observations, review of the referenced geotechnical/geologic investigations and other data noted herein, it is our opinion that development of the property for residential purposes will not prohibitively impact Commercial Mineral Deposit resources in Garfield County. While most of the surficial materials at this site appear to be suitable for use as grading fill, utility trench backfill and roadway subgrade materials, their commercial viability is significantly impacted by a variety of issues including existing zoning, surrounding development, conservation values, groundwater, and the location and preservation of a rail corridor. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS The findings, conclusions and opinions presented in this report are based upon the provided information, referenced documents, field observations and our experience. The suitability of the specific soil and rock materials for any intended purpose must be evaluated based upon field investigations and testing as deemed necessary by the responsible entity. RMG Engineers Group - 8 - App. P-9 CLOSING This report has been prepared for Carbondale Investments, LLC in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data obtained from review of available topographic and geologic maps, review of available reports of previous studies conducted in the site vicinity, a site reconnaissance, and research of available published information. Our professional services were performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists practicing in this or similar localities. RMG does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies or other third parties supplying information which may have been used during the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied, is made by the preparation of this report. RMG Engineers Group - 9 - App. P-10 REFERENCES 1. MSN/Google Earth©, 2010, as of Nov. 12, 2010. 2. Garfield County 2008 Unified Land Use Resolution, Updated Through July 2010. 3. Geologic Map of the Cattle Creek Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado by R.M. Kirkham, et al, 1996, Colorado Geologic Survey. 4. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, adopted November 10, 2010, Garfield County Planning Commission, Garfield County, Colorado. 5. Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed River Edge Colorado PUD and Preliminary Plan Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 110 337A, November 10, 2010. 6. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook – 2007, Colorado [Advance Release]. 7. Update of Sinkhole Setback Information, Proposed Cattle Creek Crossing Project, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, November 30, 2007. 8. Geotechnical Review of Proposed Grading and Erosion Plan along Highway 82, River Bend Development, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, August 30, 2007. 9. Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed River Bend Development, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, July 17, 2007. 10. Summary of Subsurface Exploration, Proposed River Bend Development, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 107 0267, June 11, 2007. 11. Summary of Subsurface Exploration, Proposed Bair Chase Development, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek, Garfield County, Colorado, HP Geotech, Job No. 101 586, December 21, 2001. 12. Phase 1 Geologic Investigation, Sanders Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado, CTL/Thompson, Inc., Job No. GS-1888, July 26, 1996. RMG Engineers Group - 10 - App. P-11 FIGURES RMG Engineers Group - 11 - App. P-12 App. P-13 App. P-14 App. P-15 App. P-16 App. P-17 ATTACHMENTS RMG Engineers Group - 12 - App. P-18 App. P-19 Appendix Q: Visual Analysis drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Neighborhood CenterRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK01 Neighborhood Center Concept 1" = 50'-0" Location Plan App. Q-2 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Neighborhood CenterRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK02 Neighborhood Center Concept 1/16" = 1'-0" Elevations App. Q-3 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Neighborhood CenterRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK03 Neighborhood Center Concept 1/16" = 1'-0" Elevations App. Q-4 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Neighborhood CenterRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK04 Neighborhood Center Concept 1/16" = 1'-0" Elevations App. Q-5 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK05 Single Family n.t.s. Family - Rear Loaded 1/8 ac. S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E A R L O A D E D - 1 / 8 t h A C R E C O N C E P T Concept App. Q-6 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK06 Single Family n.t.s. Family - Rear Loaded 1/6 ac. S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E A R L O A D E D - 1 / 6 t h A C R E C O N C E P T Concept App. Q-7 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK07 Single Family n.t.s. Family - Rear Loaded 1/4 ac. S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E A R L O A D E D - 1 / 4 A C R E C O N C E P T Concept App. Q-8 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK08 Duplex Family n.t.s. Family - Rear Loaded 1/4 ac. D U P L E X F A M I L Y R E A R L O A D E D - 1 / 4 A C R E C O N C E P T Concept App. Q-9 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK09 Residential n.t.s. Neighborhood Street R E S I D E N T I A L N E I G H B O R H O O D S T R E E T - C O N C E P T 0 1 Concept 01 App. Q-10 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK10 Residential n.t.s. Neighborhood Street R E S I D E N T I A L N E I G H B O R H O O D S T R E E T - C O N C E P T 0 2 Concept 02 App. Q-11 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK11 Outline n.t.s. Specification and Material O U T L I N E S P E C I F I C A T I O N A N D M A T E R I A L S A M P L E S Samples App. Q-12 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK12 Aerial n.t.s. Perspective - Looking North A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E - L O O K I N G N O R T H App. Q-13 drawing no. project no. drawing title scale date p e w box 414 wolcott co 81655 b y d e s i g n L L C c 10|501Residential Character StudyRiver Edge DevelopmentCarbondale InvestmentsCarbondale CO12:10:10 SK13 Aerial n.t.s. Perspective - Looking South A E R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E - L O O K I N G S O U T H App. Q-14 Appendix R: Road Network Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. R-2 Appendix S: HP Geotech Review Letter Appendix T: Well Locations XX/XX/10EXISTING WELL DATA (1 OF 3)Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325App. T-2 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325XX/XX/10EXISTING WELL DATA (2 OF 3)App. T-3 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325XX/XX/10EXISTING WELL DATA (3 OF 3)App. T-4 Appendix U: Reclamation Plan Eagle Office | 1143 Capitol Street, Suite 205 | PO Box 426 | Eagle, CO 81631 Golden Office | 14143 Denver West Parkway, Suite 170 | Golden, CO 80401 P: 866-934-8140 | F: 877-934-8141 Memorandum To: Garfield County and Reviewers CC: From: William S. Otero, P.E., 8140 Partners, LLC Date: 1/15/2011 Re: Clarification concerning Reclamation Plans and Actions The reclamation actions or conditions detailed in the Reclamation Plan and on the Series RP01and ES02 drawings in the River Edge Colorado PUD and Subdivision Drawing Package represent a proposed pre- development reclamation action (Phase 0), including grading, necessary to repair the damage to the Project Site resulting from actions taken by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. Development- related reclamation is detailed in the Landscaping Plan. Post-development reclamation is addressed in the River Edge Colorado PUD Guide. Like the Reclamation Plan (Phase 0), the development and post-development reclamation proposals also meet the reclamation provisions of the ULUR. RECLAMATION PLAN RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO O W N E R / A P P L I C A N T : C A R B O N D A L E I N V E S T M E N T S , L L C 7 9 9 9 H W Y 8 2 C A R B O N D A L E C O 8 1 6 2 3 970-456-5 3 2 5 C O N S U L T A N T : 8 1 4 0 P A R T N E R S , L L C P O B O X 0 4 2 6 E A G L E , C O 8 1 6 3 1 J A N U A R Y 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 2 RECLAMATION PLAN RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 4 A. BASIS .................................................................................................... 4 B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PLAN .............................................................. 4 C. FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 4 II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................... 5 A. PROJECT LOCATI ON ............................................................................... 5 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 5 III. PHASE 0 RECLAMATION DESCRIPTION ............................................ 6 I V. PLAN BASIS ................................................................................. 8 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................... 8 1. RIVERS, CREEKS AND FLOODING ............................................................... 8 2. PONDS AND WETLANDS ............................................................................ 9 3. GROUNDWATER......................................................................................... 9 4. TOPOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 9 5. WILDLIFE .................................................................................................. 10 6. SOILS ........................................................................................................ 10 7. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................................................. 12 V. RECLAMATION DESIGN ............................................................... 13 1. RFTA TRAIL RELOCATION ......................................................................... 14 2. RELOCATION OF GLENWOOD DITCH ....................................................... 15 3. SITE GRADING AND RESTORATION .......................................................... 16 4. DRAINAGE FEATURES............................................................................... 18 5. VEGETATE SITE ......................................................................................... 19 VI. COST ESTIMATE AND METHOD OF FINANCING .............................. 21 Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A1: VICINITY MAP AND PROJECT SITE DRAWINGS APPENDIX B1: REVEGETATION PLAN APPENDIX C1: PHASE 0 RECLAMATION AGREEMENT Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 4 I. INTRODUCTION A. BASIS This Reclamation Plan ("Plan") has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review ("Rezoning") and Subdivision Review ("Preliminary Plan") for the proposed River Edge Colorado ("Project", "REC", or "REC PUD") in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("ULUR"), as amended. This Plan proposes and details a pre-development reclamation action ("Phase 0"), including grading, necessary to repair the damage to the Project Site resulting from actions taken by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD which partially regraded the Project Site (as hereinafter defined) for residential and golf course development and stripped and stockpiled the topsoil. This Plan supports the proposed rezoning and subdivision plans at a preliminary design level. Together with the reclamation provisions of the Landscape Plan and PUD Guide, this Plan fulfills the requirements of Section 4-502.E.11 and addresses the standards and criteria contained in Sections 7-203, 7-204, 7-205,7-206, 7-207, 7-212.B, 7-303, and 7-701 of the ULUR. This Plan is supported by other referenced documents submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications including the River Edge Colorado PUD and Subdivision Drawing Package ("Drawing Package"). B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PLAN The primary purpose of this Plan is to provide preliminary design information in support of the reclamation actions depicted on the engineering plans (i.e. Reclamation Plan, RP01 Series in the Drawing Package). This Plan, in combination with the reclamation provisions of the Landscape Plan and PUD Guide, RP01 Series in the Drawing Package, and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan drawings (Series ES02 in the Drawing Package) documents the feasibility of meeting the reclamation provisions of the ULUR. The completed Phase 0 reclamation will serve as the design basis for final design to be completed in association with each Final Plat. All preliminary plans included in the Drawing Package, however, utilize existing conditions as the current design basis. A final Phase 0 reclamation design package meeting the requirements of the ULUR and Garfield County Building Code, including the Phase 0 Agreement and required security (Appendix C1), will be submitted to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department for Grading Permit and any other required building permits prior to undertaking Phase 0 pre-development reclamation of the Project Site. C. FINDINGS Based on the preliminary information provided with and in support of this Plan, William S. Otero P.E. (Colorado Registration #32163) has determined through his direct involvement in the preparation of the document and the associated plans that the reclamation plan has been designed, and may be final designed and implemented in a manner that meets or exceeds the general requirements presented in Sections 7-203, 7- 204, 7-205,7-206, 7-207, 7-212.B, 7-303, and 7-701 of the ULUR. Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 5 II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located along State Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and Town of Carbondale near the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82. The property is located almost entirely west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way and east the Roaring Fork River and the Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC") Conservation Easement (i.e., Grant of Conservation Easement dated February 3, 2000, recorded at Reception Number 559036 and survey map, recorded December 24th, 2008, recorded at Reception Number 760571 in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado). The Project straddles Cattle Creek which is also located within the RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A1. The Project covers approximately 160 acres ("Project Site") as shown and described on the Project Site drawing [Exhibit 2(a-d), Appendix A1]. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is a proposal to create a walkable clustered-form of residential development with neighborhood amenities including naturalized open space and enhanced wildlife habitat, community recreation, parks, and neighborhood agriculture that is designed to serve the residents and preserve and provide reference to the rural character and agricultural roots of the Roaring Fork Valley. The Project aims to have a strong historic identity back to the days of ‘old Colorado’ when compact neighborhoods formed with a strong sense of community based on the land and surrounding landscape. The REC landscape aesthetic will be simple, informal, and place emphasis in the use of plant and landscape materials local, adaptable and appropriate to the climate and environment of the area. The Project will include approximately 366 residential units of various sizes and types including 55 affordable homes and one exclusive executive lot for a custom home. Housing types will range from attached homes to small single family attached and detached garden homes, village homes, and larger estate homes. Smaller garden homes are anticipated to be designed for younger residents that are looking for their first home in the County, while village homes and estate homes will provide move up opportunities for growing families. Densities in the Project are proposed at less than 2½ units per acre. Lot sizes will vary from over 1 acre to approximately 5,000 square feet for single family homes, and 1,700-5000 square feet of lot area for each garden home. Most of the units back to either proposed active parks or reclaimed open space to help enhance the connection to the land. The REC layout and design is depicted in the PUD Plan, PUD01-03 Series and the Preliminary Plan PRPN01-03 Series of the Drawing Package. The architectural theme will be complementary to the traditional architecture of the valley. Generally, exterior materials will include wood, stone, brick, stucco and cement board siding. Varied roof heights and articulation of the front elevations will be used to break up the massing and provide street-level appeal. Front porches and covered stoops are included on homes to emphasize the entry and connection to the sidewalk and street. Roofing will include dimensional shingles, metal, or other materials appropriate to the building style and that roofs will generally be pitched. Gables, wall plane and roofline articulation, bays, balconies, porches, canopies and arcades will be used in the Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 6 design of various buildings. The selection of materials will minimize the exterior maintenance of the homes to help maintain a quality appearance for the long term. The street pattern and pedestrian network are designed to facilitate community interaction. Streets have detached sidewalks with designated cross walks at major intersections and landscaped areas that create a comfortable environment for walking. On‐street parking in most areas will further buffer vehicular and pedestrian uses. Internal circulation is maximized and dead‐end streets are limited. Alleys are used where appropriate to enhance the streetscape and achieve a mix of housing styles. A soft trail system is used to connect open spaces and other common elements with the sidewalk network. The homes are placed close to the streets to help define the streetscape space and provide visual interest to pedestrians. Street trees and plantings are proposed to enhance the aesthetics of the street. The community is served with a variety of recreational facilities and a neighborhood center that could include meeting room(s), fitness room, offices, kitchen, restrooms, recreational facilities, and limited community service use such as a day care facility, deli/coffee shop, or health club. Parks will provide informal recreational opportunities within the community and will likely include tot lots, playfields, and trail system. The west portion of the property is generally set aside as the naturalized area that buffers the RFC Conservation Easement along the Roaring Fork River. The soft trails around the property allow residents to enjoy the river and wetland areas without disrupting the environment in conformance with the terms of the RFC Conservation Easement. More than the minimum open space requirements will be met by the project. Nearly 50% of the Project Site is in some form of open space, common area or park. Finally, opportunities for productive and edible landscapes, including community gardens and neighborhood orchards are integrated and dispersed in between the residential land uses as gathering and focal places for residents connecting REC to its agricultural heritage. The combination of trails, recreation areas, and open space system with the ability to engage in ‘interactive community agriculture’ on a small scale will make REC a very desirable place to live, filling a unique niche not yet met in Garfield County. This unique combination will help establish a sense of place, foster community, and engage residents with their immediate environment. It is intended this overall outdoor focus will set the tone and become a major driver of the identity of REC. III. PHASE 0 RECLA MATION DESCRIPTION The Phase 0 pre-development reclamation actions proposed by this Plan is a set of restorative measures design to repair damage to all areas of the Project Site caused when Bair Chase under the Sanders Ranch PUD undertook site development work which included relocation of the Glenwood Ditch, removal of vegetation, topsoil removal and stockpiling, and extensive regrading. Phase 0 is proposed with the understanding that future development of the Project Site is also proposed. As a result, the Plan includes a grading program and actions proposed and designed to help ensure that environmentally important areas of the Project Site can be reclaimed and restored to a final condition prior to any development and that future encroachments by construction Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 7 activities into sensitive area associated with the Project can be avoided. As a result, the Phase 0 actions should help to ensure that reclamation is protective. This Plan includes the following restorative, grading and pre-development related actions: Rio Grande Trail: The relocation of the Rio Grande Trail at the access point to the Project Site in coordination with the RFTA and in accordance with current licenses and agreements. The trail will be grade-separated at the entry point to the Project Site to reduce or eliminate potential vehicular conflicts with the pedestrians and bicyclists both during reclamation and subsequently to reclamation. This will also allow the open space area adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail to be landscaped in accordance with the applicable easement [Grant of Easement Open Space Easement, recorded on August 2, 1999 at Reception Number 549754 in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado ("RFTA Open Space Easement")] to provide a permanent buffer for pedestrians and bicyclists during any subsequent construction activities and allow this area to remain undisturbed during subsequent actions. Glenwood Ditch: The Glenwood Ditch was previously relocated. Construction-related issues have resulted in continued leakage from the ditch which could result in piping and land degradation going forward. In addition, the relocation of the ditch is necessary to facilitate property development. The relocation of the Glenwood Ditch to a location which does not conflict with future development plans and provides for access to raw water for continued agricultural use and revegetation actions, the development of a raw water delivery system in association with the Project, and uninterrupted supply to other properties holding rights to water delivered by the Glenwood Ditch. Relocating the Glenwood Ditch as part of reclamation will allow the areas affected within open spaces and other proposed community spaces to be fully reclaimed and undisturbed by future actions. Site Grading: Regrading of the site to facilitate proper drainage, resolve existing and potential geotechnical hazards created by the previously described Bair Chase action, prepare the proposed developable areas of the Project Site for interim agricultural reuse and future residential use, restore appropriate grade-breaks between the RFC Conservation Easement and the proposed development area, replace topsoil across the Project Site, repair and stabilize eroding steep terrace escarpments adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement, and repairing areas of active stream bank erosion. Activities immediately adjacent to or within the RFC Conservation Easement will be conducted only in coordination with the RFC. Drainage Facilities: The construction of appropriate and necessary major drainage facilities and water quality detention ponds to provide for Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 8 proper and safe drainage of the Project Site and reduce the risk of piping under either interim agricultural or future residential uses. Revegetation and Environmental Screening: Final revegetation of with appropriate native vegetation of areas intended for continued use as naturalized open space areas, the planting of vegetative screens as required by the RFC Conservation Easement and RFTA Open Space Easement, and the revegetation of interim agricultural or future residential use areas with appropriate forbs and horticultural stock to protect soils from erosion. As described above, the Phase 0 pre-development reclamation actions proposed by this Plan establishes site conditions that represent a series of final and interim measures with the intent of meeting the needs not only of the land with respect to restoration but the Project. The restorative actions taken under this Plan although termed "temporary" across a portion of the Project Site in anticipation of the Project could reasonably be expected to perform as final restorative actions over the entire site and will support interim or permanent agricultural use. However, without the potential of development represented by the approval of the REC PUD, reclamation of the Project Site is not financially feasible. IV. PLAN BASIS A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIO NS The existing Project Site features/conditions and features/conditions immediately adjacent to the Project Site are shown on the Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. 1. RIVERS, CREEKS AND FLOODING The Roaring Fork River flows from the south to north just west of the Project Site through the adjacent RFC Conservation Easement. The Roaring Fork River is a large perennial river with a very large drainage basin to the south. The 160 acre Project Site is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. Cattle Creek crosses through the Project Site from east to west and roughly divides the property in half. Cattle Creek is a moderate sized perennial stream with a large drainage basin to the east. Cattle Creek joins the Roaring Fork River about mid-way along the western edge of the Project Site. The floodplains associated with both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek generally do not extend onto the Project Site except along small portions of Cattle Creek. These areas are all identified as being included in non- development areas of REC. The Glenwood Ditch currently diverts water from the Roaring Fork River, south of the Aspen Glen development, to be used for land irrigation. The ditch is piped Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 9 and enters the Project Site along the southeastern edge of the Project Site paralleling the RFTA Right-of-Way until it reaches Cattle Creek. From that point, it traverses the Project Site in a northwesterly direction and exits the Project Site prior to discharging back to the Roaring Fork River (See Existing Ditch alignment on Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package). The current design capacity of the ditch is approximately 50 cfs, of which the REC owns rights to 12 cfs for land irrigation. 2. PONDS AND WETLANDS The wetlands do not generally extend off the RFC Conservation Easement onto the Project Site except in very small pockets at the southern end of the site and along portions of Cattle Creek. Wetlands are present along the entire length of the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. No wetland disturbance is anticipated as part of these reclamation activities unless stream bank stabilization activities are undertaken outside the Project Site in coordination with the RFC and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers ("ACOE"). Ponds were excavated on the Project Site as golf features as part of the proposed Sanders Ranch PUD in 2005 but were never completed, and do not contain water since they were never finished and lined. Special considerations must be taken in placing soils to restore those areas and facilitate planned development as described in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 3. GROUNDWATER Groundwater is generally tied to the Roaring Fork River in the area. Hepworth- Pawlek Geotechnical ("HP Geotech") measured groundwater at depths of about 39 to 77 feet in various borings onsite (See Geotechnical Engineering Study, Appendix J of the Impact Analysis for additional information). Shallow groundwater can be expected closer to the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek in the lower alluvial terraces on the Project Site. HP Geotech also notes that shallow perched groundwater can occur in association with the substrates that occur on the Project Site during heavy rains where clay lenses exist, although none are currently documented. 4. TOPOGRAPHY The topography in the area is shown by the contour lines on the Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. These contours represent the existing contours that resulted from the grading activities conducted by Bair Chase in 2005 in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD. The proposed contours are shown on the Reclaimed Condition and Phased Condition, Series ES02 and ES04 of the Drawing Package. The proposed contours will be put in place as part of Phase 0 pre-development reclamation of the Project Site. Final contours within the development area will be put in place in association with the Project. Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 10 The proposed 160 acre development area is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The terraces have an average down-valley slope of less than one percent. Steep escarpments separate the original terrace levels, although some have been removed in association with previous grading activities. These escarpments typically have slopes of up to 60 percent. The current topography is significantly modified due to past grading activities and agricultural activities for nearly 80 years before the most recent development activities. Special considerations must be taken in performing construction activities near steep escarpment areas as described in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 5. WILDLIFE Rocky Mountain Ecological Services assessed wildlife and vegetation in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, dated December 11, 2010 and included in Appendix K of the Impact Analysis. The Report identifies a series of species of specific concern on or adjacent to the Project Site. The following information is drawn from the Report. With respect to these reclamation activities, two species require specific attention. The first species is the Great Blue Heron. Active heron rookeries have been identified adjacent to the Project Site within the RFC Conservation Easement. The active rookeries are important to the species and human activity around the nesting sites can cause herons to temporarily abandon their breeding attempts, allow predation of eggs, or permanently abandon a colony. The REC includes a proposed activity buffer area around active heron rookeries as shown on the PUD Plan, Series PUD01-03 of the Drawings Package and provided for in the PUD Guide. This buffer restricts outdoor construction activities from March 1 through August 1 of every year within 200 meters a heron nesting site. The second species is the Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). The Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid is a native orchid that was listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Threatened species in January of 1992. At that time, the species population was estimated at 6,000 individuals in 10 extant and 7 historical (and thought extirpated) sites in the states of Nevada, Colorado, and Utah and thought to be extremely vulnerable. In addition, the habitat of this plant was thought to be seriously threatened from development, noxious weeds, and some grazing practices. The Project Site does not contain orchids or suitable habitat for orchids. The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid was located along both the east and west banks of the Roaring Fork River during wetland delineations occurring in August 2010 and was not located in areas which may be subject to bank stabilization measures. 6. SOILS The soils have been preliminarily evaluated by HP Geotech. The Geotechnical Engineering Study is provided as Appendix J of the Impact Analysis prepared by Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 11 8140 Partners, LLC. The following discussion concerning the soil conditions is summarized from the Geotechnical Engineering Study. The main landforms at the Project Site related to the Project Site's surficial materials include (1) post-glacial alluvial terraces along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, (2) Pinedale glacial outwash terraces along the Roaring Fork River and related alluvial terraces along Cattle Creek, and (3) coalescing alluvial fans. A small part of the Project Site is located on the post-glacial alluvial terraces and the remaining development area, except the Executive Lot at the south end of the Project Site sits on the Pinedale glacial outwash terraces. The Executive Lot and surrounding open space sit on an alluvial fan. The topsoil was stripped from most of the Project Site and stockpiled in 2005 by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD approved by Garfield County. The areas stripped of topsoil and stockpile sites are shown on the Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. The previous grading consists of both cut and fill areas. The fill areas are mostly composed of coarse-grained terrace alluvium. The terrace topsoil and upper fine-grained deposits were separated during grading and were placed in the soil stockpiles. The post-glacial terraces are located as two terraces. The lower terrace stands about 5 feet above the river and the higher terrace stands about 13 feet above the river. The alluvium is described as a clast-supported deposit of silty sand with occasional bouldery, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected to be present in these areas. The proposed development will be located on the higher Pinedale terraces. However, Roaring Fork River utility and Cattle Creek bridge and utility crossings will encounter these post-glacial terrace deposits. The Pinedale outwash terraces along the Roaring Fork River and the associated Cattle Creek terraces occur in several levels that formed at different periods. Grading in 2005 removed all of the mid level terraces. Essentially all of the proposed development within the REC PUD will be on the graded area (originally the fifth and sixth terraces) and on the third, fourth and seventh terrace levels. The alluvium under the Pinedale terraces associated with the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are a clast-supported deposit of rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders in a silty sand matrix. Pedogenetic soil profiles are well developed in the Pinedale terraces. This indicates these surfaces have been stable with respect to erosion and deposition for over about 5,000 years. Soils are excessively cobbly and will be required to be sorted or screened when backfilling trenches. Imported bedding material may be required. Trenching is likely to be difficult and trench walls will require support or be laid back at 2 or 3:1 slopes to prevent failure during construction. With respect to disturbed soils, HP Geotech noted that while resistance is high in areas where fill has been placed, they are uncertain if the fills in all areas are Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 12 suitable for building foundations and may be subject to differential settlement. As a result, additional geotechnical analysis will be done prior to development as part of this reclamation. Specifically, disturbed soils and existing fill will be further tested during this Phase 0 pre-development reclamation to determine if they should be removed, replaced and compacted where existing conditions would not support the development features planned for that area. Mitigation approaches are specifically described in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. With respect to native soils, HP Geotech noted that while bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location, in general, the upper natural soils should typically be suitable for structure support although the Project Site may be subject to some differential settlement. Specific mitigation measures are discussed below and in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Of additional importance to the reclamation effort is the condition of stockpiled soils. Due to being stockpiled since 2005, the soil microbial populations, nutrient levels, and mycorrhizal fungi populations in soil stockpiles will be highly altered. With respect to disturbed soils and revegetation, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in Appendix B1 have noted that they recommend that soil samples be sent to Colorado State University for nutrient analyses prior to the revegetation activities and appropriate treatments be undertaken as part of Phase 0 pre- development reclamation to enhance potential success of revegetation efforts. The most cost effective means of influencing mycorrhizal populations on large projects is to provide suitable soil conditions such as using soils with higher soil organic matter and avoiding heavy fertilization. The stockpiled topsoils on the property may or may not have adequate levels of organic matter and may also require enrichment. 7. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The geotechnical conditions and geologic hazards have been evaluated by HP Geotech. The Geotechnical Engineering Study is provided as Appendix J of the Impact Analysis prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC. Five primary hazards affecting the Project Site were identified in the Geotechnical Report. These hazards include evaporite sinkholes, steep terrace escarpments, active stream bank erosion, debris flows and floods, and earthquakes. The following discussion concerning the geotechnical conditions and geologic hazards is summarized from the Geotechnical Engineering Study. The location of identified evaporite sinkholes, steep terrace escarpments, and debris flows and floods are shown on the Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Maps, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. a) Evaporite Sinkholes The entire Project Site is subject to potential sinkhole development as it is underlain by the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The evaporite between Carbondale and about 3 miles south of Glenwood Springs is part of the Roaring Fork diapir which forms the core of the north-trending Cattle Creek anticline. The Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 13 west limb of the anticline in this part of the Roaring Fork River valley coincides with the Grand Hogback monocline that marks the western limit of the Carbondale evaporite collapse center. HP notes that it is uncertain if the regional subsidence and evaporite deformation along the Roaring Fork diapir are still an active geomorphic process or if evaporite deformations have stopped. If still active, present deformations are likely occurring at rates similar to past long-term rates of between 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. These slow deformation rates should not present a potential risk to buildings and other facilities being considered at the Project Site. b) Steep Terrace Escarpments Steep terrace escarpments that commonly have slopes of about 60 percent and vary from 40 to 80 feet high are present along the Roaring Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are potentially unstable and in some cases have been further destabilized due to piping associated with irrigation water from the previous agricultural activities on the Project Site. The escarpments are located along the western most property line and encroach into the RFC Conservation Easement. These areas can contribute to sediment production during rain and flood events or in association with excessive irrigation. c) Debris Flows and Floods With respect to debris flows and floods, HP Geotech notes that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the numerous, small drainage basins on the east Roaring Fork River valley side where the ephemeral streams in these basins discharge on terrace surfaces. Before construction of SH 82 and development to the east of the highway, the alluvial fan formed a continuous apron at the terrace-valley side transition. Most of the upper parts of the fans have been removed by grading for these facilities. With the exception of the southernmost portion of the Project Site, the Project Site is not impacted by debris flows. The risks associated with the geologic hazards on the Project Site indicate that certain precautions should be taken in the design and construction of these proposed land reclamation activities. All grading and structure design and construction should be done in conformance with this Plan and the Hazards Mitigation Plan submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications. V. RECLAMATION DESIGN This section describes the actions to be performed under pre-development reclamation. Each of the five tasks is generally described, including references to other coordinating documents, and a specific description of associated construction activities. The following information is supported by the Reclamation Plan, RP01 Series of the Drawing Package. Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 14 Final conditions resulting from Phase 0 pre-development reclamation are shown on the Reclaimed Conditions, ES02 Series of the Drawing Package. 1. RFTA TRAIL RELOCATION a) General Description Based on the requirements presented in the existing RFTA Easement Grant (Book 1142 at Page 963 amended Book 1217 at Page 588 in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado) of for Milepost 367.51, as amended, the current RFTA trail will be relocated to an adjacent grade separated alignment beneath the new main entrance for the Project. The relocated trail approach grades from the north and south are less than 6 percent and transitioned to allow for the safe passage for trail users, and allow users to enter and exit the trail to connect with other adjoining facilities. The structure will be 12 feet (w) by 50 feet (l) and 10 foot (h)). The relocation will facilitate secure passage of trail users, as well as allowing safe movement of vehicles entering and exiting the Project as shown on RFTA Trail Underpass Plan and Section, Series C05 of the Drawing Package. This relocation activity will occur prior to initiating major reclamation efforts to facilitate safe separation of construction traffic and trail users. b) Specific Construction Activities Specific activities associated with this effort include: Installing informational and required traffic control/safety signage and barriers to keep trail users informed of the surrounding construction activities and provide for their protection during construction in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Installing temporary construction drainage BMPs, such as silt fence or straw waddles, to limit the release of sediment during grading activities. Rough grading approaches from the existing RFTA trail to new structure location. Excavating and preparing foundation soils for placement of the structure. The foundation soils will be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent Standard Proctor and then base course material placed to achieve design grades. Placing the structure (including entrance walls) and permanent drainage BMPs (e.g. storm sewer inlets) as shown on RFTA Trail Underpass Plan and Section, Series C05 of the Drawing Package, and backfilling surrounding voids in Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 15 maximum 6 inch lifts and compacting to a minimum of 95 percent Standard Proctor. Finalizing grading to within approximately 6 inches of the designed final grades and place top soil in preparation for vegetation. Placing temporary barriers and directional signage to redirect trail users to the new route through the Project Site and obliterate the old trail section and place permanent barriers and signage, and remove temporary barriers and signage. Vegetating disturbed areas per Section IV.5 of this Plan, attached Revegetation Plan (Appendix B1) and the landscaping provisions of the PUD Guide. 2. RELOCATION OF GLENWOOD DITCH a) General Description To maintain the required irrigation flows in the Glenwood Ditch and facilitate coordination with development activities, the Glenwood Ditch will be partially relocated from its current location to the new alignment presented on Glenwood Ditch Relocation Plan and Profiles, Series SW06 of the Drawing Package The relocated section of pipe will match the existing size (48-inches in diameter), average grade (approximately 0.1 percent) and minimum cover (18 inches). New manholes will be placed to facilitate horizontal alignment changes (i.e. bends), maintenance, and usage for open space irrigation. These activities will be performed in coordination with site grading and hazard mitigation efforts. Once the relocated pipeline is operational, the ditch water will be redirected and the old pipeline will be removed. Due to the constraints created by the relocation of this pipe for other planned below grade utilities, some coordination activities will also be performed to lessen future impacts on the newly placed pipeline by the placement of other utilities. b) Specific Construction Activities Specific activities associated with this effort include: Installing temporary construction drainage BMPs, such as silt fence or straw waddles, to limit the release of sediment during excavation activities in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Excavating and preparing foundation soils for placement of pipe and manholes. The foundation soils will be compacted Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 16 to a minimum of 95 percent Standard Proctor and then base course material placed to achieve design grades. Installing pipe and manholes per designed alignment and grades as shown on Glenwood Ditch Relocation Plan and Profiles, Series SW06 of the Drawing Package, and backfilling surrounding voids (up to top of pipe) in maximum 12 inch lifts and compacting to a minimum of 95 percent Standard Proctor. Placing remaining cover soils to within approximately 6 inches of the designed final grades shown on Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package and placing top soil in preparation for vegetation. Finalizing connections to existing ditch and removing relocated portion of existing pipeline. Vegetating disturbed areas per Section IV.5 of this Plan, attached Revegetation Plan (Appendix B1) and the landscaping provisions of the PUD Guide. 3. SITE GRADING AND RESTORATION a) General Description In 2005, the Project Site was graded to facilitate a previously approved project (i.e., Sanders Ranch PUD), which included both residential and golf course development. The project was discontinued and the site was left in very poor condition, with little or no reclamation performed. Therefore, prior to initiating any future development activities on the site, the Project Site must be reclaimed in order to address geotechnical issues, erosion and sedimentation, drainage, and vegetation/habitat issues resulting from the previous action. There are many objectives to achieve during these Phase 0 pre-development reclamation activities, they include: Repairing the site from previously unfinished development grading and restoring proper site drainage; Performing site-wide geotechnical observations; Mitigating existing geological hazards (i.e. steep escarpments, active stream banks, and sink holes), as appropriate and in coordination with the RFC; Grading and vegetating the Project Site to facilitate future development, interim agricultural production and restoration of environmentally sensitive areas including the placement of stockpiled topsoil; and Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 17 Reclaiming open space areas directly adjacent to RFC Conservation Easement and within the RFTA Open Space Easement to required conditions under the easements or other naturalized conditions. To achieve the objectives presented above, prior to undertaking grading activities two actions must first be completed. First, existing debris left from previously terminated development activity that poses a safety hazard to those accessing and working on the Project Site will be removed. The debris will be collected and trucked offsite for disposal. Second, hazard mitigation associated with sinkholes, steep escarpment and active stream bank erosion will be initiated as described below and in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. It should be noted that mitigation measures for steep escarpment and active stream bank erosion within the RFC Conservation Easement has been discussed with the RFC. These activities can and will only be performed with approval from the RFC. Once the debris has been removed and the hazards mitigation has been initiated, the site will be graded per the elevations and slopes presented on the Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. Existing surficial soils planned to receive fill (i.e. areas of previous excavation associated with the previous development) will be properly prepared (i.e. cleared, grubbed and ripped) to ensure a cohesive transition between existing and newly placed fill. Fill material will be placed in lifts of no greater than 2 feet and compacted per geotechnical specifications and to design grades presented. All areas of disturbance (i.e. cut or fill) will be completed to within 1 foot of the designed final grades using onsite materials and then topsoil will be placed and prepared for specified vegetation (see Section IV.5). b) Specific Construction Activities Specific activities associated with this effort include: Removing of site debris that presents a safety hazard to those working on the site. The debris will be containerized and shipped off site for final disposal at an approved landfill. Based on existing information, none of the debris requires special transport or disposal efforts. Preparing the site for grading operations by surveying the site and placing required staking to facilitate construction. Performing hazard mitigation for existing steep escarpment areas will require further investigation prior to initiation. Mitigation measures will be specific to a location and the development action proposed. For example, steep escarpment areas in the vicinity of open space, the affected area, at a minimum, will be excavated, filter material sized to reduce the release of finer particles placed, select fill Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 18 compacted (minimum compaction 85 percent Standard Proctor) and rock placed to armor the outer edges. For other steep escarpment areas with planned development infrastructure in the vicinity, more robust levels of mitigation may be required to achieve the necessary level of protection. In most cases, this increased level of mitigation specific to the area would require construction activities within the RFC Conservation Easement to achieve the required level of protection. For areas of observed active stream bank erosion, the areas will be armored by placing BMPs, such as rock or vegetation, approved by the RFC and ACOE. Sinkhole areas will be assessed and compaction or other measures will be taken to reduce or eliminate the hazards associated with these areas. Grading site to within approximately 1 foot of the final designed grades shown on Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. In areas of fill, materials will be placed in maximum of 2 foot lifts and compacted to: 95 percent Standard Proctor under development features, 85 percent Standard Proctor under common areas and 80 percent Standard Proctor under open space areas. Due to the entire site being located within a general hazard area related to regional conditions associated with the possible development of sinkholes, during all grading activities onsite geotechnical observations will be performed. The field observations will be targeted at locating any additional areas of questionable soil or geologic conditions. Should such area(s) be observed, additional investigations (e.g. drilling) will be performed as necessary based on the type of development features being planned as described in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mitigation measures will be employed or documented for future design in association with the subsequent Final Plats. Placing top soil and vegetating disturbed areas per Section IV.5 of this Plan, the attached Revegetation Plan (Appendix B1) and the landscaping provisions of the PUD Guide. 4. DRAINAGE FEATURES a) General Description In an effort to reduce further disturbance in the reclaimed areas once these pre-development activities are completed, major permanent drainage features will be constructed as a component of this Phase 0 pre- development reclamation effort. The drainage features being constructed include: Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 19 Major drainage channels; and Water quality and raw water detention basins. As described in both the Hazards Mitigation Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, once constructed the major stormwater conveyance (i.e. channels) and storage facilities (e.g. ponds or detention basins) will be lined to minimize water infiltration. The liners will either be constructed of natural (e.g. compacted clay) or engineered (e.g. HDPE) material. In addition to lining, the systems will be sloped and vegetated to limit erosion and facilitate natural surface water treatment (i.e. lessen downstream nutrient loading). Storage facilities located in the vicinity of steep escarpments (i.e. NP1) shall be lined with HDPE and the outfall will be directed to an area outside the impacted slopes and extra protective measures will be employed. If it is determined through further site investigations that even with mitigation the storage facility could either cause further erosion or the current erosion could cause damage to the facility, the facility will be relocated. b) Specific Construction Activities Specific activities associated with this effort include: Grading major drainage channels, pond and detention basins in coordination with the activities discussed in Section IV.3 of this Plan and to the final designed location and grades shown on Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. Preparing foundation soils to receive and install liners per manufacturer recommendations for geosynthetics or engineers recommendations for natural materials. Placing specified cover materials (i.e. rock or topsoil) and vegetate disturbed areas per Section IV.5 of this Plan, attached Revegetation Plan (Appendix B1) and the landscaping provisions of the PUD Guide. 5. VEGETATE SITE a) General Description Vegetation associated with this Phase 0 pre-development reclamation effort consists of both temporary and final activities. The proposed open space located along the RFC Conservation Easement and within the RFTA Open Space Easement will be final revegetated in an effort to initiate growth and protect downstream areas from increased sedimentation including the placement of any required buffers. In addition, areas planned for development will be temporarily vegetated to minimize dust and protect Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 20 areas from surface water induced erosion. Some development areas may also be temporarily vegetated with agricultural seed mixes or with horticultural species to be used onsite as required Project landscaping. The proposed open space directly adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement will require four different types of vegetation activities: Native vegetation in areas of limited human activity; Heron screening vegetation in areas between development areas and occupied nesting trees; RFTA buffer measures along the RFTA Open Space Easement; Slope protection vegetation for areas of grades steeper than 20 percent; and Transitional vegetation for areas to be impacted by future development. See Revegetation Plan in Appendix B1 for planting schedules and Reclamation Plan (Series RP01), Open Space Plan and Schedules (OS01) and Landscape Plans (LA01-05) of the Drawing Package for locations and prototypes for each of the areas described above. Proposed community space areas located within the development area are planned for various purposes and many will likely require incursions by construction activities during development. Therefore, the level of vegetation in these areas will vary, but the primary purpose is to initiate base level vegetative growth and facilitate future garden and orchard planting. Due to the variable duration of development activities, the areas planned for future development will be temporarily vegetated to assist in dust control and protection of surface water quality. All areas not scheduled for future development construction in association with REC development within 30 days will be temporarily vegetated as presented on Reclamation Plan, Series RP01 of the Drawing Package. b) Specific Construction Activities Specific activities associated with this effort include: Amending topsoil placed as part of other reclamation activities discussed above, as necessary in accordance with the Revegetation Plan (Appendix B1). Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado 21 Vegetating as scheduled in the Revegetation Plan (Appendix B1) and Reclamation Plan (Series RP01), Open Space Plan and Schedules (OS01) and Landscape Plans (LA01-05) of the Drawing Package. Temporary irrigation will be provided, as necessary, to facilitate successful establishment of vegetation. VI. COST ESTIMATE AND METHOD OF FINANCING A cost analysis and estimate will be provided for reclamation under separate cover in conformance with Section 6-301C.8.r.(3) of the ULUR at the time of and in association with the Grading Permit application. Based on the preliminary design submitted for review in association with the current rezoning and preliminary plan application supported by this Plan, preliminary costs have been developed and reviewed by 8140 Partners, LLC. These costs have been determined to be reasonable and support the feasibility of implementing the above proposed reclamation as part of the Project. Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX A1 : VICINITY MAP AND PROJECT SITE DRAWINGS App. A-1 12/01/10VICINITY MAPExhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.5325App. A-2 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. A-3 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. A-4 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. A-5 Exhibit:Date:8140 Partners, LLCTitle:Prepared by:Owner/Developer: Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623Phone No:970.456.532512/01/10App. A-6 Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX B1: REVEGETATION PLAN App. B-1 epetterson@rmes-inc.com | www.rmes-inc.com po box 833 glenwood springs co 81602 | 970.309.4454 Balanced solutions to complex environmental issues. PENDO solutions ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES R OCKY E COLOG Carbondale Investments, LLC Prepared for: River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan Garfield County, Colorado December 2010 App. B-2 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 1 Table of Contents 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 2 2 CURRENT LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 2 2.1 Upland Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Riparian Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 3 3 REVEGETATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 3 4 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................................... 4 5 FIGURE 1: RECLAMATION AREAS ................................................................................................. 5 6 PRECIPITATION ..................................................................................................................................... 6 6.1 Table 1: Glenwood Springs annual rainfall averages per month. ................................................. 6 7 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 7.1 Soil Nutrients and Mycorrhizal fungi ................................................................................................ 6 7.2 Fertilizing ............................................................................................................................................... 7 7.3 Soil Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 7 8 SEEDING ................................................................................................................................................... 7 8.1 Table 2: Estimated Costs and Production Schedule of Plant Materials ....................................... 8 8.2 Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 8 8.3 Seed Ordering ....................................................................................................................................... 9 8.4 Seeding Techniques .............................................................................................................................. 9 8.4.1 Drill Seeding........................................................................................................................ 9 8.4.2 Broadcast Seeding .............................................................................................................. 9 8.4.3 Timing of Seeding .............................................................................................................. 9 8.4.4 Seed Storage ........................................................................................................................ 9 9 LIVE PLANTINGS ................................................................................................................................. 10 9.1 Figure 2: Planting Typical for Heronry Screening Areas .............................................................. 10 9.2 Planting Instructions and Timing .................................................................................................... 11 9.3 Protection from Herbivory ............................................................................................................... 11 10 PONDS AND WETLAND FEATURES ............................................................................................ 12 10.1 Table 3: Suggested Wetland Species for Pond ............................................................................... 13 10.2 Stormwater Retention Ponds (Basins) ............................................................................................ 14 11 SITE STABILIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 14 11.1 Figure 3: Open Space Typical ........................................................................................................... 15 12 WEEDS ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 12.1 Figure 4: Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................. 17 App. B-3 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 2 1 Summary This revegetation plan is prepared in support of the pre-development Reclamation Plan, prepared by 8140 Partners, LLC. for the River Edge Colorado project (REC). Also provided are plans for a vegetative screening along the properties southwest boundary for compliance with stipulations presented in the Grant of Conservation Easement by the Roaring Fork Conservancy (2000). The goal of this screening is to provide a visual, auditory and physical screen between REC and riparian and riverside wildlife activities at key locations. The revegetation plan is focused on the open space areas within the REC. Reentry into these areas following reclamation as part of development activities will generally be limited to soft trail construction, stormwater enhancements, maintenance activities, and specific activities required by the Grant of Conservation Easement. The open space areas will be revegetated using local native vegetation. Other areas will be revegetated in a manner that provides for interim soil stability, water quality maintenance, agricultural production and future development. While initially input intensive, as with any revegetation activity, native plants in the long term are self sustaining and supplemental water use becomes unnecessary. Native plants provide habitats for local wildlife species and are aesthetically pleasing as they will eventually blend these manipulated open areas of REC into nearby sites and hillsides covered by existing native plant communities. The use of locally adapted native plant species also provides a foundation for ecological functions as well as ultimately affecting soil conservation and water quality. If native species can colonize and become established on a highly disturbed site the processes of succession, including soil genesis and nutrient cycling are initiated (Brown and Amacher 1999). These activities and others associated with ecosystem development will begin on these disturbed areas through the establishment of appropriate native plants. Soils will be salvaged from the topsoil stockpiles on the property and spread on areas to be re- vegetated. These activities as well as the live plantings and seeding are scheduled to begin in 2011 or 2012. 2 Current Landscape Conditions 2.1 Upland Areas The current state of the vegetative cover over much of the property reflects several recent and historical impacts. While the riverside corridor along the Roaring Fork River is still dominated by native woody species, much of the upland portion of the REC property was cleared of native vegetation around 100 years ago to plant non–native hay grasses and/or provide for livestock and farming activities. Steeper microsites and some wetter terrain were probably spared due to difficulties in accessing them. The riparian vegetation along Cattle Creek itself is highly altered as are instream flow regimes. The impacts from past year-round grazing practices are also still apparent as very little woody vegetation occurs along much of Cattle Creek on the upper benches. Any remaining pockets of native sagebrush shrublands also show little species diversity. The introduction of the current noxious weed species occurring along the Roaring Fork River’s riparian corridor probably occurred during the agricultural operation of the area as well. In 2005, the upland topsoils were removed and salvaged with heavy equipment and most of the property was re-contoured and taken down to subsoil in preparation for development. Partway through these efforts, the landowners of what was then the Sander Ranch project abandoned the project. The acres of newly denuded, very cobbly subsoils were quickly colonized by ruderal, non- native weed species such as white sweetclover (Melilotis alba), flixweed (Descurainia Sophia) and Russian thistle (Salsola collina). Several noxious weeds also took residency, including kochia (Bassia sieversiana), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scotch thistle App. B-4 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 3 (Onopordum acanthium). While noxious weed treatments have been ongoing for the past 3 years, a great majority of the property has basically remained in this denuded and weedy state for several years. REC has reported more recently seeding the stockpiles and graded areas with a temporary seed mix to increase soil cover, reduce erosion and provide competition for weeds. 2.2 Riparian Areas The REC project is planned to occupy acreage on only the upland areas at this time. The riparian areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River are located within the RFC Conservation Easement. Work within these zones must be coordinated with and approved by the RFC. Although generally outside the scope of this revegetation plan, the Cattle Creek riparian area is in need of attention. The majority of the riparian habitats along Cattle Creek on the property are currently dense with reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), a very aggressive, robust, non-native grass that has excluded most native vegetation except in isolated areas. Constriction of waterways and irrigation ditches is common with the dominant presence of reed canarygrass. Thick colonies of this grass are perched on the edges of incised watercourses which can promote further erosion beneath the dense mats of rhizomes causing undercutting of the banks. A labor-intensive, aggressive program spanning several years is needed if other riparian corridor species are desired. Programs for reed canary grass control typically involve well timed mowing or burning followed by timely herbicide treatments and even disking. This process of reclaiming riparian areas dominated by reed canarygrass can often take several years (Paveglio & Kilbride 1996). Reed canary grass treatments must be followed by an aggressive reseeding and replanting program with desirable species. Like the Cattle Creek riparian area, the Roaring Fork River riparian areas could benefit from some attention. The riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River could be improved through a yearly noxious weed control program. These areas were not scraped and manipulated during the 2005 grading of the site. Although non-native aggressive pasture grasses are in the vicinity, many existing native riparian species would be released if given a reprieve from the noxious weeds in the area through a yearly weed effort. Care would need to be taken with the herbicide treatments so they would occur in the upper areas of the riparian corridor and not along the immediate inundation zone right along the Roaring Fork River. This zone is where the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid has been observed. Fortunately, to date the orchids were not located in areas supporting noxious weeds. The majority of the populations of weeds noted in the easement areas along the Roaring Fork are in the more open terraces well above the riverside, late-summer wet zones supporting orchids. 3 Revegetation Objectives • In designated areas, initiate the processes of native plant succession, including soil genesis and nutrient cycling in areas that have been denuded of topsoil and vegetation. • Increase sagebrush habitats and increase plant species diversity within those habitats. • Create a native upland community that provides wildlife habitat and a natural transition zone between the riparian areas of the Roaring Fork River and the planned housing development. • Plant trees and shrubs along key areas of the western upland boundary to provide a visual, auditory and physical screen between the proposed home sites and riparian and riverside wildlife activities. • Introduce competition for noxious weeds using native grass and forb species and provide weed control through timely applications of effective herbicides and other control strategies. App. B-5 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 4 4 Project Constraints The following are some anticipated, potential constraints to a successful revegetation project: • Topsoil is likely highly altered from years of storage; • Difficulty in sowing seeds of individual species to appropriate depths; • High risk of animal damage to newly planted and seeded sites (e.g., deer, elk and small mammals); • Ability to control timing and application of irrigation; • Noxious weeds; • Impacts of non-native, early-seral weedy species (sweet clover, annual mustards, Russian thistle, etc) on newly emerged native seedlings; • Availability of desired native plants and seeds; • Extreme fluctuations in weather such as hot, dry spells and/or winter desiccation, etc. App. B-6 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 01 Reclamation Areas for Undeveloped Open Space 82 82 R o a r i n g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Undeveloped Open Space Developed Areas Foot Trail App. B-7 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 6 6 Precipitation Precipitation records exist for Glenwood Springs dating back to 1893 and give perspective on what the expectations are for receipt of natural rainfall in the project area. Setting up temporary irrigation on all seeded sites and for containerized plantings is planned because natural precipitation is low and irrigation water is available. Locally, a typical spring or fall month is wetter than the mid-summer months, but in general only by fractions of an inch. A big month for precipitation would be greater than 1.5 inches. These rates are typically not adequate for manipulated revegetation projects. The average annual precipitation per year for Glenwood Springs is 16.43 inches which supports a relatively xeric environment. Well timed and directed supplemental irrigation would be extremely beneficial. Additional water assists in germination and establishment of even locally native plant materials, even though after establishment, these highly adapted plants will be able to survive without the extra water. 6.1 Table 1: Glenwood Springs annual rainfall averages per month. Glenwood Springs 1893-2010-Annual Rainfall Averages per Month Total Average Annual Precipition: 16.5" 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Decinches 7 Soils 7.1 Soil Nutrients and Mycorrhizal fungi Areas to be planted with either seed or containerized trees and shrubs will first be spread with 8-12 inches of the locally stored topsoils. These soils have been stockpiled for upwards of 5 years and the soil microbial populations, nutrient levels, and mycorrhizal fungi populations will be highly altered. Soil samples will be taken from the stockpiles to be used and sent to Colorado State University for nutrient analyses prior to the revegetation activities. The need for amendments will be determined at that time. Populations of mycorrhizal fungi and microbes in the stored soils cannot realistically and affordably be measured for this project. The hope is that some of the spores of the mycorrhizal fungi have survived. The presence of appropriate mycorrhizal fungi is essential to the healthy growth and establishment of approximately 90% of the world’s plants (Amaranthus and Webber 2008). However, beyond the knowledge that these organisms are essential, very little is known about specific species and less is known about how to affordably identify them in soils. What is known is that mycorrhizal fungi can be key components to plant success except in more ruderal and weedy species such as Russian thistle (Salsola kali, S. collina) and kochia (Bassia sieversiana), hence these plants ability to dominate depleted sites. App. B-8 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 7 Mycorrhizal fungi form an association with plant roots whereby each organism assists the other. The fungi allow more surface area to be reached within the soil horizon. After infecting plant roots, the mycorrhizal fungi send out miles of tiny filaments (hyphae and mycelium) that occupy large expanses of soil, trapping mineral nutrients and water and transporting them back to the plant. The tiny mucilaginous filaments of some mycorrhizal fungi attach and penetrate between root cells and other species attach to the outer cells of the root cortex of a plant. The fungi are then acting like an extension of the root system itself. The benefit to the fungus is receipt of essential carbohydrates and other compounds from the plant roots to help fuel its own growth (Raven et al. 1992). The most cost effective means of influencing mycorrhizal populations on large projects is to provide suitable soil conditions. Using soils with higher soil organic matter and avoiding heavy fertilization have both been found to help favor increases in soil mycorrhiza (Johnson 1998). The stockpiled topsoils on the property may or may not have adequate levels of organic matter. 7.2 Fertilizing For sites requiring reseeding fertilizers can be beneficial. However, the use of inorganic fertilizers in native revegetation projects has repeatedly been shown to increase weed presence and hence slow establishment of native species. Therefore, unless soils are extremely depleted, no inorganic fertilizer should be used in seeded areas. If fertilization is deemed necessary after soil test results, only slow- release organic fertilizers will be used. Biosol, Biosol Mix, Osmocote, or Granular Humate, well composted manure or an approved equal may be applied as necessary to address any deficiencies in the topsoils. Biosol is typically added at a rate of 1500-2000 lbs per acre. If composted manure is to be applied, the nutrient content shall be tested before it is used. Composted manure may also help in increasing soil organic matter necessary for healthy establishment of mycorrhizal fungi. Rates of fertilization will vary according to soil tests. 7.3 Soil Preparation Successful revegetation does not emulate strict agricultural or engineering standards. Soil surfaces are best left as rough and irregular as practical, something often difficult for a skilled heavy equipment operator to embrace. Smoothly compacted soils are often encountered in revegetation projects and are problematic. On the REC, topsoils will be redistributed to a depth of 8-12 inches which will provide enough depth to ensure roots can penetrate to the depth necessary for proper establishment. Various topsoil depths are best where small pits are created (12” x 12” to 6” x 12” in depth) as microsites for gravity driven collection of moisture and seed at irregular intervals. Even placement of rocks and/or other natural debris is desirable for again creating these diverse microsites. However, soils surfaces that are too uneven or rocky can pose challenges if drill seeding. 8 Seeding Seeding properly in a area includes extensive planning, site specific seed mixes and rates, seeding techniques, quality assurance and seed ordering, proper seed storage, seeding at optimum times, remedial seeding, mulching and possibly seed collection. Listed in Table 2 is the recommended seed mix for the native upland areas as well as the live plants planned for the vegetation screen on the western boundary of the REC. The seed numbers listed are for broadcast seeding as opposed to drill seeding. However, drill seeding with a rangeland drill (Truax Range Drill or equivalent) capable of accommodating several different seed sizes and planting at several different depths is the preferred method. If drill seeding is available, seed numbers can be reduced by 25% as seed placement is more precise and germination is more reliable. The table is built with a rate of 125 seeds per square foot for grasses and forbs with an additional 75 seeds per square feet planned for shrubs. App. B-9 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 8 8.1 Table 2: Estimated Costs and Production Schedule of Plant Materials Nursery/Seed Co/Schedule Est. Cost/lb Total lb Cost/ 5 Acres 1. Seed Grasses Bouteloua gracilis Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $7.80 2.8 $21.84 Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $14.30 1.4 $31.5 Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $4.50 7 $31.50 Festuca idahoensis Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $5.60 4.8 $26.88 Hesperostipa comata, Stipa comata Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $28.60 8.8 $251.68 Hesperostipa viridula, Stipa viridula Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $3.00 19.7 $59.10 Koeleria macranthra Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $22.50 0.2 $4.50 Oryzopsis hymenoides, Achnatherum hymenoides Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $4.50 7.5 $33.75 Pascopyrum smithii Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $7.20 56.9 $409.68 Pleuraphis jamesii, Hilaria jamesii Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $22.20 2.3 $51.06 Poa secunda Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $5.90 0.6 $3.54 Sporobolus cryptandrus Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $4.00 0.9 $3.60 Forbs Eriogonum umbellatum- Western’s price Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $60.00 2.6 $155.94 Heliomeris multiflora, Viguiera multiflora Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $62.00 0.4 $24.80 Machaeranthera bigelovii-Western’s price Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $80.00 0.7 $53.06 Oxytropis sericea-Western’s price Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $192.00 2.1 $403.20 Penstemon strictus Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $11.00 2.7 $29.70 Sphaeralcea coccinea Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $86.20 .5 $43.10 2. Shrubs/ Subshrubs Artemisia tridentata var pauciflora Collect Fall 2010? $50.00 3.3 $165.00 Artemisia frigida Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $48.00 0.1 $4.80 Chrysothamnus nauseosus, Ericameria nauseosus Collect Fall 2010? $44.00 9.9 $435.60 Krascheninnikovia lanata, Ceratoides lanata Seed Co.-order winter'10-'11 $25.00 29.2 $730.00 Vegetation Screen: Linear 1/4 mile X 15 ft. Schedule/Nursery Cost/ Plant No. of Plants Total Cost 3. Container Plants (trees/shrubs) Pinus ponderosa order Fall 2010-5 gal $15.15 44 $666.60 Juniperus osteosperma order Fall 2010- 5 gal $17.95 44 $631.84 Crataegus erythropoda order Fall 2010- 1 gal $6.40 88 $563.20 Rhus aromatica ssp trilobata order Fall 2010- 1 gal $6.20 88 $491.04 Rosa woodsii order Fall 2010- 1 gal $3.30 88 $436.48 Note: Seed costs are per five acres for broadcast seeding. 8.2 Planning The native species listed for the project are extremely well adapted to the site conditions but may not be readily available from seed companies. Placing the order a year ahead of the planned implementation of the project allows seed vendors to order seed early better ensuring availability. Inherent in the seed industry is a lack of predictability as to what species might be available at a given time in the native seed markets. The more lead time given to a seed company, the better probability of the seed being available. Native seed is relatively slow to germinate and very slow often to establish. A great deal of early growth is devoted to the underground plant mass, the roots, unlike many agricultural products with App. B-10 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 9 which we are more familiar. Expect to wait 2 to 3 years before ever evaluating the level of seeding success or failure. 8.3 Seed Ordering The seed mix will be requested as PLS (Pure Live Seed) only. Requests will be made for the seed lot to be tested to check the seeds viability and purity. Additionally, the seed vendor will be required to provide crop and weed seed contaminants, location of origin (if available), viability and purity test dates and date of packaging. The vendor will also be asked to group and mix species by seed size according to the seed size accommodations of the various seed boxes on the seed drill, if applicable. Mixing the entire mix together is not suitable when using a range drill and it is imperative to make this very clear when ordering from the seed vendor. 8.4 Seeding Techniques For the seeding project at the REC, two seeding options are available. These are broadcast seeding and drilling. These are described below, as well as the situations where each would be most appropriate. The seeding contractor chosen must be experienced with the type and scale of work required in order to assure the highest success rate possible. Having worked with native seeds, the drill seeding equipment and experienced personnel are all keys to a successful project. 8.4.1 Drill Seeding Drilling is not always practical or possible, but when it is, the results are far superior to broadcast seeding. A seed drill (Truax Range Drill or equal) can be used on slopes that are gentler than 2:1 and drill tube spacing should be 6-7 inches apart. The area must be big enough for the drill to successfully turn around and maneuver. Drill seeding also requires an experienced operator. Seed sizes must be carefully matched to boxes on the drill that are set appropriately not only for dispersal but for drilling depths. In general, smaller seeds are spread on top and barely drilled, while the larger a seed, typically the greater it’s required planting depth. 8.4.2 Broadcast Seeding Broadcast seeding can require almost twice the amount of seed as drill seeding. This is due to inevitable loss from desiccation, wind, and herbivory. The seed is mechanically spread by use of a hydraulic mulch slurry blower, rotary spreader or a seeder box with a gear feed mechanism. In the REC seed mix, the seed sizes are markedly different (e.g. sand dropseed is about 1/10th the size of western wheatgrass seed) and it would be advisable to add rice hulls to the mix to allow more uniform dispersal. Immediately following a broadcast seeding operation, seed would be lightly raked, loosened with a chain harrow, dragged or cultipacked to provide approximately ¼ inch of soil cover over most of the seed. 8.4.3 Timing of Seeding Late fall is the optimum seeding time as many native seeds need a cold stratification period (i.e., exposure to cold conditions for an extended period) in order for them to break dormancy. Some species do not require this stratification. A late fall seeding would be required for this effort so seeds that do not need stratification would not be encouraged to germinate as they will not survive the first hard frost. Seeding is best before the first snows begin to fall, but well after the first frost and before the ground is frozen. 8.4.4 Seed Storage There should be no need for seed storage as only the amount necessary for the project should be ordered. However, if seed is left over, a storage area must be very cool, dark and dry. The longer seed is stored, the more the corresponding reduction in viability is realized. Some of the species in the REC App. B-11 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 10 mix will not last longer than a few months, such as mountain big sagebrush. The ideal moisture content of a seed storage area is approximately 8% humidity. 9 Live Plantings Two tree species and three shrub species are proposed for the vegetation screen between the sensitive riparian areas and the upland areas on the REC. The (P) ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and (J) Rocky Mountain juniper (Sabina scopulorum) will be planted on 30 foot centers. The (H) hawthorn (Crataegus erythropoda), (S) three leaf sumac (Rhus aromatica ssp trilobata), and (R) Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii) will be planted on 15 foot centers in somewhat of a line as follows. 9.1 Figure 2: Planting Typical for Heronry Screening Areas Long stretches of these plantings can be done or they can be grouped at designated sites. The final planting design will be developed by Zehren. App. B-12 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 11 9.2 Planting Instructions and Timing A contractor with extensive experience in planting trees and shrubs is imperative. Using mulch (such as bark mulch) at the base of every plant at a depth of 3 inches helps inhibit evaporated water losses and suppresses weed growth. Proper Timing: Potted plants are best planted at a stage when the species does not require a lot of energy such as during flowering or seed production or even during dormancy. Spring or early fall are best as soils can typically have some residual moisture either from melted snow or fall rains when evaporative losses are not as significant due to cooler temperatures. Early spring plantings can give plants enough time to go through shock and recover prior to the heat of summer. Planting in fall when trees and shrubs are dormant can be tricky if a dry spell is encountered after irrigation is turned off and new roots have not yet had time to establish. Timing of planting may also depend on stock availability. Proper Microsite choice: Tree roots generally reach at least the same distance as the height of the tree and often many times greater. Trees are also highly susceptible to root compaction and should be planted far enough away from high use trails and roads. The hawthorns and three-leaf sumac will also readily expand if given enough room. Planting on 15’ centers is planning for some die-off. Root Care: Care must be taken to be certain roots are not crooked or have not been severed during planting. Given the poor soil conditions at the site, holes should be dug 1 ½ times the size of the root balls, and backfilled with higher quality soils to help with more rapid rooting and establishment. Planting Depth: The surface of the surrounding soils and ground should be midway between the top of the roots and the first limbs. In other words, just a few inches lower than the surrounding soils. Planting too shallow is especially to be avoided, but so is planting too deep with the upland species being used. Timing of Watering: The plant must be thoroughly watered immediately after planting. Additionally, adding water to the planting hole prior to planting is ideal. Dri-Water® and PVC Tubes: The use of Dri-Water® (available through Rain Bird) may also be considered to help insure the trees and shrubs are receiving adequate water. Irrigation will be set up by REC for these sites, but traditional methods are often inefficient as much of the water supplied can be lost to evaporation before it even reaches the majority of roots. The use of a deep-pipe irrigation method set up for use with Dri-Water® can increase survival rates as water is delivered deeper into the soils and rooted areas. A 2-6” diameter PVC pipe (or tube) about the height of the root ball, is buried next to the plant. The tube has holes drilled equidistantly for water to drain out of it to reach nearby roots. The tube can also be used with Dri-Water® gel packs which are inserted inside. The theory is the gel releases water to the plant only when the plant needs it. These gel packs are also able to keep the roots from getting too wet or too dry. Packs must be replaced every 1-3 months depending on the size of the plant, and soil and climate conditions. The number and size of gel packs and tubes needed to adequately irrigate a new planting typically runs about $6-$9 per set-up. The tubes are close to $5 and the gel packs run between two to three dollars. Caps or screens are also essential so as to assure animals do not get caught inside the tubes. Fertilizing: Depending on soil test results, fertilizers will be used accordingly. If necessary, Osmocote® fertilizer can be applied at small amounts to the base of the live plantings with excellent results. 9.3 Protection from Herbivory Due to the presence of both deer and elk on the property, fencing any newly planted shrubs and trees will be necessary for the success of the project. The seeded areas will also experience their share of App. B-13 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 12 browsing pressure, but the live plantings will need extensive fencing for many years in order to assure success. The most effective method and perhaps least time consuming when considered over several years is to use 6 foot, 12 gauge, welded wire fencing and carefully placed wire fence posts for support (Currently 100 foot rolls of this wire are prices at $182 at the Roaring Fork Co-op). Rather than put one long fence up, the plantings could be done such that distinct areas are created with enough space between to form a break in the fencing and essentially create islands of fenced trees and shrubs instead. The vegetation screen would be created with distinct areas of trees and shrubs for fencing purposes, yet still fulfill the goal of a lengthy, linear screen along key areas of the western upland boundary visually and physically blocking riparian communities below. These fences will need repair and inspection several times of year and will be required until shrubs and trees are large enough to withstand deer and elk pressures. 10 Ponds and Wetland Features River Edge Colorado is required to construct a pond within the conservation easement area, per section 5. Reserved Rights (e). Per the Grant of Conservation Easement, the final location, scope and dimensions shall be reviewed and approved by the RFC. This plan includes some recommendations for the establishment of native wetland species for the long-term creation of functioning, high quality wetlands. In addition, there will also be stormwater ponds which may be intermittently flooded or saturated, and we present recommended native plant species suitable to such conditions. Objectives The creation of a 1.5 acre pond with saturated soils and emergent vegetation will provide potential habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, but also for amphibians such as northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), which is listed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as a Species of Concern. Northern leopard frogs were once common in the Roaring Fork valley, but have recently seen a dramatic decline. The larger pond is also designed to provide buffering and screening device for wildlife benefits in the conservation easement area. Constructed ponds will also help with flood attenuation and water quality through filtering of potential runoff which otherwise may directly enter surface waters. Site Selection The pond site was selected based on its location away from residential development and the potential indirect impacts. This site is located on a native alluvial bench approximately 60 feet above the floodplain, in an area previously seeing topsoil salvaging. Water would come off of the Glenwood Ditch, and REC has ample water rights from this source, thus there would be no issue of keeping this pond hydrated. Outfall from the pond would be through an engineered creek back to Cattle Creek. This would also minimize any complications with disturbing additional wetland areas for re-delivery of waters into the Roaring Fork, and it would minimize consumptive water use on the property, allowing more instream waters to stay in the Roaring Fork watershed. Site Protection Instrument This pond site is on lands held in a conservation easement with Roaring Fork Conservancy, which is a 501(c)3 Land Trust organization based in nearby Basalt that specializes in watershed protection through use of conservation easements. The Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) is in discussions with REC at this time regarding the design, how monitoring and maintenance of the pond site, but both parties are in agreement the pond construction is appropriate and consistent with the goals of the conservation easement in the protection of conservation values. App. B-14 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 13 Pond Work Plan The pond area would be excavated out to approximately 5½ -feet below the existing grade, and then topsoils would be redistributed to provide a growth medium. When the mitigation area is ready a supply pipeline and open ditch will be excavated allowing waters from the Glenwood Ditch to passively flow into the site. The grading of the pond would be done using laser-levels to ensure depths are correct. This pond would also function as a stormwater structure (S. Otero 8140 Partners pers. comm. 2010), with approximately 2 feet of “freeboard”, or 23,256 gallons of additional stormwater capacity. The permanent inundation area would be approximately 3 acre-feet, or 1.5 surface acres. Maximum water depths would be 5 ½’ deep, but most of the pond area will have water depths from ½-feet to 3 ½-feet in order to provide appropriate hydrology to maximize the ecological values of this site while still providing some stormwater functionality. A head-gate will be installed at the diversion point in case water regulation is needed to prevent the mitigation site from becoming too inundated. After the hydrology to the site is fine-tuned, live wetland plant species will be installed. 10.1 Table 3: Suggested Wetland Species for Pond Size Class Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia thinleaf alder #5 Asclepias incarnata marsh milkweed 10 cu in Betula occidentalis river birch #5 Carex lanuginosa woolly sedge 10 cu in Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge 10 cu in Carex utriculata (C. rostrata)beaked sedge 10 cu in Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn #5 Eleocharis palustris creeping spikerush 10 cu in Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus 'C thickspike wheatgrass 10 cu in Glyceria striata fowl mannagrass 10 cu in Iris missouriensis Rocky Mountain iris 10 cu in Juncus arcticus (J. balticus)Arctic rush, Baltic rush 10 cu in Juncus dichotomous forked rush 10 cu in Juncus ensifolius swordleaf rush 10 cu in Juncus nodosus knotted rush 10 cu in Juncus tenuis slender rush 10 cu in Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush 10 cu in Mimulus guttatus common monkeyflower 10 cu in Pascopyrum smithii (Agropyron)western wheatgrass 10 cu in Poa palustris fowl bluegrass 10 cu in Prunus virginiana chokecherry #5 Ribes aureum golden currant #5 Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow #1 Salix eriocephala var. ligulifolia strapleaf willow #1 Salix geyeriana Geyer's willow #1 Salix lasiandra whiplash willow #1 Schoenoplectus acutus (Scirpus acutus)hardstem bulrush 10 cu in Scirpus microcarpus panicled bulrush 10 cu in Shepherdia argentea silver buffaloberry #1 Species This mitigation site is scheduled to be built and planted in 2012, at least one-year prior to development. Maintenance Plan The RFC will hold the pond area within the boundaries of their conservation easement area, which is not on lands owned by REC. As part of the agreement between the RFC and REC, the RFC will be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of the condition of the pond area. Any needed work to maintain the mitigation area would be documented by RFC, and RFC would hire local contractors or use in-house resources to address any findings or needs to maintain the pond area. App. B-15 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 14 Performance Standards & Monitoring Requirements Annual reports documenting the status of the pond site would be at the discretion of the RFC. Annual reporting would include descriptions of hydrology, wetland plant persistence, noxious weeds, and siltation issues, annual photographs from photopoints, as well as a description of the function and value of the pond area. Relative cover for each species as well as for each life form (e.g. perennial grasses, perennial forbs, shrubs) would also calculate to more clearly show the composition of the vegetation community in the pond area. Performance standards would include: 1. > 80% foliar cover of intentionally planted local natives or desirable local native wetland plant assemblages as measured during the growing season. 2. < 5% noxious weed cover as measured during the growing season (including all State and County listed weed species). Weeds that occupy >5% of foliar cover would need to be treated in accordance with the State Noxious Weed Act- therefore some noxious weeds may need to be eradicated immediately (following all required environmental protection standards). RFC’s annual reporting would include brief descriptions of noxious weeds and how they were treated. 3. < 3% foliar cover from undesirable plant species. For example, this would include cattail (Typha latifolia), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and other potential non-locally native plant species (such as escaped ornamentals). Undesirable plant species would be removed on an annual basis with coordination from RFC. RFC’s annual reporting would include brief descriptions of undesirable plant species and how they were treated. 4. At least 20% of the pond area should have saturated soils during the entire growing season to facilitate recruitment of Spiranthes diluvialis. 5. No more than 70% of the pond area will have free-standing water with no emergent vegetation. 6. Recommend no human “user trails” and a general lack of human activities in the pond area. This is to allow for full resource protection and wetland function of the pond. Some incidental human activities in the pond would be allowed, but it should not negatively impact the plant communities or function of the wetland resource. Evidence of human activities will be reported in RFC’s annual reporting. 10.2 Stormwater Retention Ponds (Basins) REC is proposing to construct open stormwater retention basins to collect, filter and allow the infiltration of stormwater in order to avoid un-mitigated discharge of stormwater into area wetlands and waters (per CDPHE requirements). These stormwater basins would therefore be inundated from time to time, but would be allowed to dry in between stormwater events. In order to allow these features to blend in with surrounding vegetation profiles, and still provide some environmental and ecological benefits, the stormwater basins would be vegetated using local native species. A combination of native sedges, rushes, grasses, willows and shrubs would be used (selected from Table 3 above). The final selection of actual species mixes would occur during final grading and construction of the basins. 11 Site Stabilization The revegetation of the open space areas would not require mulch or erosion control blankets, but some steeper areas may see enhanced reclamation and erosion control measures. Until the site is certified as “stabilized” by stormwater inspectors, erosion control devices and best management practices would be employed (e.g., silt fence, wattles, etc.). Given the availability and use of irrigation App. B-16 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 15 water to speed revegetation, the use of mulch would not likely be necessary except on more difficult revegetation sites on the property. Revegetation of benches and steeper slopes would essentially be the same as for open space areas, with the exception of use of erosion control features and larger rocks to add topographical diversity, site stabilization, and visual diversity. Steeper slopes would be left fairly rough during the final grading process, as opposed to a very smooth surface. The soil roughening will help with minimizing erosion potential and will benefit the native species used in site reclamation. Additionally, on site from 5 to 15% slopes REC would use a certified weed-free straw mulch and tackifyer to assist with soil stabilization and soil moisture retention to help with site revegetation. On slopes steeper than 15% erosion control blankets using straw and cotton netting may also be used. REC would be avoiding the use of erosion control blankets with plastic netting due to the potential for wildlife catching on the netting and being entangled or pulling up the blankets (the cotton netting tends to break in localized areas which prevent wildlife from being caught and prevents large sections of blanket from being pulled up). On the slopes, REC will also plant containerized juniper, Gambel’s oak, and other shrubs to add visual diversity and to speed the reclamation process. The final density and layout of these shrub plantings would be decided later in the process. 11.1 Figure 3: Open Space Typical App. B-17 River Edge Colorado Revegetation Plan 12/11/2010 RMES, INC. & EM ECOLOGICAL, LLC. 16 12 Weeds Weeds, both state listed noxious weeds and ruderal, annual weedy species will continue to be the largest challenge to a native seeding and planting project at REC. Clear, definitive actions must be taken on a species by species basis and enacted quickly as soon as the weed problems arise. Herbicides and even mowing will be necessary at early stages of the project, especially the first two years. Timing of herbicides is critical so as to limit potential injury to desirable plants. Careful spot spraying will be necessary (as opposed to broadcast spraying) as forbs and shrubs will have been planted with the native grasses at the same time. Although some senescence and injury will occur to some of the native seeding during herbicide treatments, the planting of the full suite of grasses, forbs, and shrubs fills many more ecological niches and thereby provides for the best competition for potential weedy invaders. A weed management plan created in response to what exists on the property now and in conjunction with what begins colonizing the newly relocated topsoils will be key to success for any newly revegetated areas. Please see the Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment Report for more discussion on noxious weeds. This report was produced with the support of: App. B-18 ^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_60006010 60 20 5970599059805960 59506030 6040 6 050 60 60 6070 608 0 6090 6100611 0 6120 5940 6130 614059306150 6160617061806190 62 00 6210 62206 2 6 0 627 06230624 06280 592060006 060 6010 6200 59705940 6000 597060 30 6210 618 0 602 0 59906 0 4 0 6030 59905950 601 0 6150599 0 6160 5 9 4 0 6080 60 70 6180 599 0 5990 5950 61 60 60206200 6140 596060105990 6030 59906030 59905 9 8 0 61 9 0 6 020 6150 62206110 60 90 6150 61606020 60 50 6060 600059 4 0 602 0 6 1 2 0 596061206040 6130 59 80 60106040 6020 6020 6180 6000 6150 6140 6 130 60006070 6020 60306000610 0 5990 599060306160 6020 601059406 010 6160 5950 5990 6030 60105940 6110 599 0 600060206160 59606030 6 14 0 60 40 5950594061 30 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE XX Noxious Weeds 82 82 R o a r i n g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major Scale: 1" = 800' Feet 0 800 1,600400 Canada Thistle St. John's Wort Burdock Common Tansy Houndstongue Musk Thistle Oxeye Daisy Plumeless Thistle Scotch Thistle Common Tansy Plumeless Thistle Scotch Thistle ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ App. B-19 Reclamation Plan River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX C1: PHASE 0 RECLAMATION AGREEMENT App. C-1 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 1 RIVER EDGE COLORADO PHASE 0 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS RIVER EDGE COLORADO PHASE 0 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this ___ day of _________________, 2011 (the "Effective Date"), by and between CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in Colorado ("Owner") and the COUNTY OF GARFIELD, State of Colorado, as a body politic and corporate (the "County"). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner and developer of the approximately 160 acre property located along State Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of Carbondale near the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82, which property is legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property"). 2. Owner desires to develop the Property into a walkable clustered-form of residential development with 366 residential units of various sizes and types, including 55 affordable homes, passive and recreational open space, and a neighborhood center (collectively, the "Project"). 3. In furtherance of the Project, Owner has filed with the County requests for approval of (i) a rezoning of the Property to a planned unit development ("PUD") district, (ii) the River Edge Colorado PUD Plan, and (iii) the River Edge Colorado Preliminary Plan. 4. Owner proposes to perform the reclamation and pre-development improvements identified in this Agreement in order to prepare the Property for development of the Project. 5. Contemporaneously herewith, the County has issued a grading permit to Owner (the "Grading Permit"), which Grading Permit is required for Owner to commence some, but not all, of the County Improvements (defined below). App. C-2 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 2 6. Although not required by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, As Amended (the "LUR"), Owner has agreed to execute and deliver a form of security satisfactory to the County to secure and guarantee Owner's performance under this Agreement, as more fully set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the County and Owner (the "Parties") agree as follows: Agreement 1. OWNER'S PERFORMANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS. a. Improvements, Generally. Owner shall cause to be constructed and installed the improvements identified in Exhibit B (the "County Improvements") and Exhibit C (the "Third Party Improvements"), attached hereto and incorporated herein. The County Improvements and Third Party Improvements (collectively, the "Improvements") shall be constructed and installed at Owner's expense, including payment of fees required by the County and/or third-party service providers or other governmental and quasi-governmental entities with jurisdiction (such third-party providers and/or entities being hereinafter referred to as a "Third Party Entity" or the "Third Party Entities"). b. County Improvements. The County Improvements shall be completed on or before the end of the first full year following execution of this Agreement (the "Completion Date") in substantial compliance with this Agreement, all applicable requirements and standards set forth in the Grading Permit, including any plans for construction incorporated therewith, and any other applicable laws and regulations. c. Third Party Improvements. The Third Party Improvements shall be completed on or before the Completion Date in substantial compliance with this Agreement, all applicable App. C-3 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 3 requirements and standards of the Third Party Entity having jurisdiction over the subject improvements and any other applicable laws and regulations. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, construction of the Third Party Improvements shall be deemed complete and in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement upon the County's receipt of written documentation from the Third Party Entity having jurisdiction over such Third Party Improvements that the improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of such entity. 2. SECURITY FOR COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS. a. Security. As security for Owner's obligation to complete the County Improvements, Owner shall deliver to the County, on or before fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date, a form of security deemed adequate by the County and payable to the County (the "Security"). The Security shall be in an amount equal to the estimate of the cost to complete the County Improvements, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the total for contingencies, as set forth and certified by Owner's professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado on Exhibit D (collectively, the "Cost Estimate"), attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Security shall be valid for a minimum of three (3) months beyond the Completion Date (the "Expiration Date"). b. Extension of Expiration Date. If the Completion Date is extended by a written amendment to this Agreement, the time period for the validity of the Security shall be similarly extended by the Owner. For each individual extension that is in excess of six (6) months, at the sole option of the County, the cost of completion of the remaining County Improvements shall be subject to re-certification by Owner's engineer and review by the County. To the extent the cost of completion of the County Improvements, plus an additional ten percent (10%) of such cost for contingencies, differs from the face amount of the remaining Security, the amount of such Security shall be adjusted upwards or downwards, as appropriate. App. C-4 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 4 c. Partial Releases of Security. Owner may request partial releases of the Security by submitting to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department a "Written Request for Partial Release of Security," in the form attached to and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit E (each a "Partial Release Request"). Each Partial Release Request shall be accompanied by the Owner's engineer's stamped certificate of partial completion of the County Improvements ("Engineer's Certificate of Partial Completion"), which certificate shall state that the County Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. The County shall authorize successive releases of portions of the Security as portions of the County Improvements are certified as complete. d. County Inspection. Upon Owner's submission to the County of a Partial Release Request with the required Engineer's Certificate of Partial Completion, the County may inspect the County Improvements certified as complete in the Partial Release Request to determine whether the improvements have been constructed in substantial compliance with this Agreement, subject to the following: i. The County shall have fifteen (15) business days from the County's receipt of the Partial Release Request (the "Initial Inspection Period") to (1) conduct an initial inspection of the County Improvements identified in the Partial Release Request and (2) furnish a letter of potential deficiency (a "Deficiency Letter") to Owner if the County determines that all or a portion of the subject improvements are potentially deficient. ii. In the event the County fails to provide Owner with a Deficiency Letter on or before the expiration of the Initial Inspection Period, the County Improvements identified in the Partial Release Request shall be deemed approved and the County shall, on App. C-5 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 5 or before ten (10) business days after the expiration of the Initial Inspection Period, release the amount of Security attributable to such improvements. iii. If a Deficiency Letter is timely issued and the Deficiency Letter identifies potential deficiencies with some, but not all, of the County Improvements that are identified in the Partial Release Request, then the County Improvements not identified as potentially deficient shall be deemed approved by the County, and the County shall, on or before ten (10) business days of issuing the Deficiency Letter, release the amount of Security attributable to the County Improvements deemed approved. iv. The County shall have fifteen (15) business days from the date of issuance of the Deficiency Letter (the "Final Inspection Period") to (1) complete its inspection (a "Final Inspection") of any County Improvements identified as potentially deficient in the Deficiency Letter and (2) provide written confirmation to Owner of any deficiencies. If, upon completion of its inspection, the County finds that the County Improvements identified as potentially deficient in a Deficiency Letter are complete, then the County shall, on or before ten (10) business days after expiration of the Final Inspection Period, release the amount of Security attributable to the County Improvements deemed approved. v. No Security attributable to any County Improvements determined to be deficient shall be released to Owner. e. Final Release of Security. Upon completion of all County Improvements, Owner shall submit to the Building and Planning Department a "Written Request for Final Release of Security" in the form attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit F (the "Final Release Request"), along with Owner's engineer's stamped certificate of final completion of the County App. C-6 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 6 Improvements ("Engineer's Certificate of Final Completion"). Upon the County's receipt of the foregoing, the County shall inspect and approve any County Improvements not previously deemed complete, and release the Security attributable thereto, in accordance with the timeframes and procedure set forth in paragraph 2.d above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at such time as all County Improvements required under this Agreement are deemed or determined by the County to be complete (the "Determination of Final Completion"), the amount of the Security shall be reduced to ten percent (10%) of the cost of those County Improvements identified on Exhibit B as the "Landscaping Improvements" (the "Reduced Security"), and the County shall, on or before ten (10) business days after the Determination of Final Completion, release the remaining amount of the Security. f. County Completion of County Improvements and Other Remedies. If the County determines, in its reasonable discretion, based on a Final Inspection that any or all of the County Im provements identified in a Partial Release Request or Final Release Request (i) are not complete and (ii) cannot by satisfactorily completed by the Owner by the Completion Date, then the County may withdraw and employ from the Security such funds as may be necessary to construct the County Improvements, up to the remaining face amount of such Security. In such event, the County shall, prior to requesting payment from the Security, make a written finding regarding Owner's failure to comply with this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-106 of the LUR. In lieu of or in addition to drawing on the Security, the County may bring an action for injunctive relief or damages for the Owner's failure to adhere to the provisions of this Agreement regarding County Improvements. Notwithstanding the foregoing and any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the County shall provide the Owner an opportunity to cure any identified deficiency(ies) App. C-7 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 7 or violations of this Agreement, as set forth in paragraph 4 of this Agreement, prior to requesting payment from the Security, including initiating the forfeiture procedures set forth in Section 13-106 of the LUR, filing for injunctive relief or damages, or seeking any other remedy at law or in equity. g. Warranty for Successful Vegetation. Owner shall be responsible for installing and maintaining the Landscaping Improvements in accordance with the standards set forth in Exhibit G ("Revegetation Standards"), attached hereto and incorporated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a period of one (1) year from the Determination of Final Completion (the "Warranty Period"), the County may, if it reasonably determines that Owner is not maintaining the Landscaping Improvements in accordance with the Revegetation Standards, withdraw and employ from the Reduced Security such funds as may be necessary to properly maintain the Landscaping Improvements, up to the remaining face amount of the Reduced Security. In such event, the County shall, prior to requesting payment from the Security, make a written finding regarding Owner's failure to comply with this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-106 of the LUR; provided, however, that County shall provide the Owner an opportunity to cure any identified deficiency(ies) or violations of the Revegetation Standards, as set forth in paragraph 4 of this Agreement, prior to requesting payment from the Security, including initiating the forfeiture procedures set forth in Section 13-106 of the LUR. On or before ten (10) days after the expiration of the Warranty Period, the County shall release to Owner the remaining Reduced Security. 3. INDEMNITY. The Owner shall indemnify and hold the County harmless and defend the County from all claims which may arise as a result of the Owner's installation of the County Improvements and the Third Party Improvements. The Owner, however, does not indemnify the County for claims made asserting that the standards imposed by the County are improper or are the App. C-8 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 8 cause of the injury asserted, or from claims which may arise from the negligent acts or omissions of the County or its employees. The County shall notify the Owner of receipt by the County of a notice of claim or a notice of intent to sue, and the County shall afford the Owner the option of defending any such claim or action. Failure to notify and provide such written option to the Owner shall extinguish the County's rights under this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to constitute a waiver of governmental immunity granted to the County by Colorado statutes and case law. 4. BREACH OR DEFAULT OF OWNER. A "breach" or "default" by Owner under this Agreement shall be defined as Owner's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of Owner contained in this Agreement. In the event of a breach or default by Owner under this Agreement, the County shall deliver written notice to Owner of such default, at the address specified in paragraph 8 below, and Owner shall have sixty (60) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such default is not of a type that can be cured within such 60-day period and Owner gives written notice to the County within such 60-day period that it is actively and diligently pursuing such cure, Owner shall have a reasonable period of time given the nature of the default following the end of such 60-day period to cure such default, provided that Owner is at all times within such additional time period actively and diligently pursuing such cure. 5. BREACH OR DEFAULT OF COUNTY. A "breach" or "default" by the County under this Agreement shall be defined as the County's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of the County contained in this Agreement. In the event of a breach or default by the County under this Agreement, Owner shall have the right to pursue any administrative, legal, or equitable remedy to which it may by entitled. 6. ENFORCEMENT. Subject to paragraph 4 above, in addition to any rights provided by App. C-9 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 9 Colorado statute, and the provisions for release of Security, detailed in paragraph 2 above, it is mutually agreed by the County and the Owner, that the County, without making an election of remedies, shall have the authority to bring an action in the Garfield County District Court to compel enforcement of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall be interpreted to require the County to bring an action for enforcement or to withdraw unused Security. In addition, the County may, but shall not be required to, pursue any of its enforcement remedies as applicable, pursuant to Article XII of the LUR. 7. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The obligations and rights contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Owner and the County. 8. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND NOTICE PROVISIONS. The representatives of the Owner and the County, identified below, are authorized as contract administrators and notice recipients. Any notices, demands or other communications required or permitted to be given in writing hereunder shall be delivered personally, delivered by overnight courier service, or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the Parties at the addresses set forth below, or at such other address as either party may hereafter or from time to time designate by written notice to the other party given in accordance herewith. Notice shall be considered given at the time it is personally delivered, the day delivery is attempted but refused, the day following being placed with any reputable overnight courier service for next day delivery, or, if mailed, on the third day after such mailing. TO OWNER: Carbondale Investments, LLC Attn: Rockwood Shepard 7999 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 456-5325 Fax: (___) ___-______ App. C-10 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 10 With a copy to: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Attn: Carolynne C. White, Esq. 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 223-1197 Fax: (303) 223-0997 TO THE COUNTY: Garfield County Building and Planning Department Attn: Building and Planning Director 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: (970) 945-8212 Fax: (970) 384-3470 9. AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY. This Agreement may be modified, but only in writing signed by the Parties hereto, as their interests then appear. Before any extension of Completion Date is considered, Owner shall certify that all taxes and assessments on the real property subject to the Agreement are paid in full. If such an amendment includes a change in the identity of the provider/issuer of security, due to a conveyance of the Property by the Owner to a successor in interest, Owner shall provide a copy of the recorded assignment document(s) to the County, along with the original security instrument. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties may change the identification of notice recipients and contract administrators and the contact information provided in paragraph 8, above, in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph and without formal amendment of this Agreement. 10. FORCE MAJEURE. Any excusable delay in Owner's construction and installation of the Improvements, including, without limitation, acts of God, war, terrorism, inclement weather, labor App. C-11 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM 11 disputes, building moratoriums or other governmental impositions, abnormal labor or material shortages, or other similar matters or causes reasonably beyond the control of Owner shall extend the time period during which this Agreement requires certain acts to be performed for a period or periods equal to the number of days of such delay. 11. SEVERABILITY. If any covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such covenant, term, condition, or provision shall not affect any other provision contained herein, the intention being that the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. 12. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed one and the same instrument. 13. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Venue and jurisdiction for any cause arising out of or related to this Agreement shall lie with the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, and this Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado. [Signature Pages Follow] App. C-12 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and agreeing to be fully bound by the terms of this Agreement, the Parties have set their hands below on this day of , 2011. OWNER: CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company By: _______________________________ Name:_____________________________ Its: _______________________________ COUNTY: GARFIELD COUNTY, a body corporate and politic By: _______________________________ Name:_____________________________ Director, Garfield County Building & Planning Department [Acknowledgement Page Follows] App. C-13 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) Subscribed and sworn to before me by ________________________, an authorized representative of CARBONDALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Owner of the Subdivision, this ___ day of __________________, 2011. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ____________________________ _______________________________ Notary Public App. C-14 Exhibit A 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT A PROPERTY App. C-15 Exhibit B 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT B COUNTY IMPROVEMENTS App. C-16 Exhibit C 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT C THIRD PARTY IMPROVEMENTS App. C-17 Exhibit D 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT D COST ESTIMATE App. C-18 Exhibit E 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT E WRITTEN REQUEST FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF SECURITY App. C-19 Exhibit F 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT F WRITTEN REQUEST FOR FINAL RELEASE OF SECURITY App. C-20 Exhibit G 13738\1\1491367.2 1/14/11 07:00 PM EXHIBIT G REVEGETATION STANDARDS App. C-21 Appendix V: CDOT Coordination Communications CDOT Communication Documentation via Email and Attached Meeting Minutes From: Roussin, Daniel <Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:53 AM To: Sam Otero <sam.otero@8140partners.com> Cc: 'Betsy Suerth' <bsuerth@garfield-county.com>; Babler, Alisa <Alisa.Babler@DOT.STATE.CO.US>; 'Kathy A. Eastley' <keastley@garfield-county.com>; Carey Gagnon <cgagnon@garfield-county.com>; Rockwood Shepard <rockwoodshepard@gmail.com> Subject: RE: River Edge Project traffic Sam – In our meeting on March 30, 2011, it was indicated that CDOT should provide some comment on the viability of access for River Edge Project on SH 82 on the west of CR 113. I stated in the past, access to the west is in a good logical location, and it will be the 4th leg of a major intersection and it meets the State Highway Access Code for spacing for major intersections. The west side isn’t the problem; it is the east side. I believe the intersection will work in the short-term and long-term the east side of the CR 113 will need to be reconfigured. It will get complicated once the CR 113 is signalized. The traffic study will need to demonstrate how the signal will work in the 20 year outlook. This will be the challenge. That is why the County and the applicant will need to have consensus on the future look of the intersection. I do believe there is viability in the access and we can work it out. I look forward in getting a solution that will work for all parties. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6290 Fax From: Babler, Alisa [mailto:Alisa.Babler@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:58 AM To: Sam Otero Subject: RE: Thanks Always good to talk to you. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Alisa From: Sam Otero [mailto:sam.otero@8140partners.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:11 PM To: Babler, Alisa; Roussin, Daniel Subject: Thanks Alisa and Dan: Thanks for meeting with me today. I will incorporate your recommendations into our process and we will be getting prepared to submit the interim step “technical memorandum”, knowing that will be an expected comment from you all on our County application. Thanks again. W. Sam Otero 8140 Partners, LLC Logistics-Planning-Design Attachment H CDOT Documentation Mail: PO Box 0426, Eagle, CO 81631 Street: 1143 Capitol Street, Suite 205, Eagle Direct: 970.445.8810 Main: 866.934.8140 Fax: 877.934.8141 CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and delete the original message. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Roussin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:05 PM To: Emily Gloeckner Cc: Sam Otero; David Millar; Babler, Alisa; rshepard@westpacinv.com Subject: Comments on Feasibility Study Emily - Here is our comments about the traffic analysis provided at our July 21, 2010 meeting. I think these comments are similar to what we discussed at our meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. Comments: 1. A level III traffic study will be needed for the access permit. The study provided was a feasibility study to examine three alternatives. 2. Based on the information provided, it appears that a second connection to SH 82 will be acceptable as proposed in alternatives 2 and 3. 3. Alternative 3 is preferable as it provides more of a public benefit with the connection under the trail between the two parcels and will allow a balancing of the traffic volumes between the intersections. Additionally, this connection will provide for secondary access which is generally required by local fire departments. 4. The level III traffic study needs to include the following information: a. Recommendations for the entire intersection, including the east half of the intersection. This may include short term recommendations if the final intersection layout cannot be constructed at this time. b. Please provide copies of the signal warrants. While the peak hour warrant is a good indicator that a signal may be warranted, it does not appear that the peak hour warrant is applicable to this location. c. Please provide documentation for any traffic reductions being assumed in the trip generation. d. Sight distance. e. Queue lengths f. Other standard level III requirements, see attached document. 5. It is our understanding that the local fire district requires secondary access for the development. Please provide documentation for our files. 6. The study will need to look at the Cattle Creek intersection as a whole, and may need to coordinate with the County to determine what improvements can be completed in the short term (developer responsibility) and long term. Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6291 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Emily Gloeckner [mailto:E.Gloeckner@fehrandpeers.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 1:30 PM To: Roussin, Daniel; Babler, Alisa Cc: Sam Otero; David Millar Attachment H CDOT Documentation Subject: Rivers Edge meeting minutes Attached are meeting minutes from our meeting on July 21 for the River Edge Crossing development. Thanks for taking the time and we look forward to review comments on the TIS. Emily Gloeckner, P.E. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants 621 17th St, Ste. 2301 Denver, CO 80293 303 296-4300 x 1611 Attachment H CDOT Documentation RIVER EDGE CROSSING TRAFFIC STUDY Coordination Meeting Minutes Meeting: CDOT Coordination Meeting Date: July 21, 2010 Time: 9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Location: CDOT Region 3 Office, Grand Junction Attendees: Alisa Babler - CDOT, Dan Roussin – CDOT, David Millar – F&P, Emily Gloeckner – F&P, Rocky Shepard – Carbondale Investments, Sam Otero – 8140 Partners Meeting Minutes An appendix needs to be added to the report that shows the trip reduction backup. Access Code allows an internal reduction of 2% and 8% in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The 5% internal reduction is acceptable in theory as long as the backup information is provided. Justification is needed for the transit reduction. In general the reductions are so low that CDOT is not too concerned with the numbers, simply the justifications. Glenwood Springs and Garfield County is undergoing an access control plan for the Highway in the Glenwood Springs area. Dan has requested that the plan be extended south to Cattle Creek. The request may or may not be accommodated. He will let us know. CDOT appreciates the respect given to the access code and the category of highway for the study. Because a full access is not being requested with the study and the plan, CDOT can support the plan. According to Rocky, the Marand Road access can be moved in order to meet the access code requirements of 1 mile spacing if necessary. The Michigan U turn concept was discussed to accommodate left turning traffic at Marand Road. In general, the concept was supported. However, more detailed look will be required to ensure trucks can make the turn. The area north of the intersection maybe difficult due to grade differences between the northbound and southbound travel lanes plus the spacing of other access. The concept maybe more feasible south of the Marand Intersection. Attachment H CDOT Documentation RIVER EDGE CROSSING TRAFFIC STUDY Coordination Meeting Minutes It would be helpful to have support from CDOT regarding the preferred scenario to order to get the PUC to agree to the concept of an underpass at the RFTA trail. Scenario 3 is the scenario that the development is pursuing. The additional connection internal to the site will allow for better distribution of traffic and smoother operations along the Highway in general. CDOT can include that the 2 access points is also in line with emergency access requirements, if that is the case. Considering the large size of the development (280 acres), 2 access points is not excessive. Public roads are easier for CDOT to support when granting access. They prefer the roads be public. The next steps will be to look at the intersection concepts to ensure the intersections can be built and the short term and long term concepts work together especially with the layout of the frontage road on the east side of the highway. A meeting will be necessary with the county and the resident engineer once the concepts are laid out. Attachment H CDOT Documentation Meeting Agenda Carbondale Investments Property (River Edge Development Project) SH 82/CR 113 Traffic and Access Meeting Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:00 a.m. Garfield County Building and Planning Office, Glenwood Springs 108 8th Street, #401 Agencies: Garfield County Building and Planning and Colorado Department of Transportation Applicant and Representatives: Carbondale Investments, 8140 Partners and Fehr and Peers Meeting Facilitator: Sam Otero, 8140 Partners 1. Introductions 2. Agenda Review 3. Process Coordination • Current (Where are we as of today?) o Project o County o CDOT • Future (Where do we need to be tomorrow?) o Coordination of process 4. 113 Intersection Discussion and Concept Development • Traffic Study (summary of River Edge Project analysis prepared to date) • 113 Intersection Discussions • 113 Intersection Concept Refinement/Development 5. Next Steps Attachment H CDOT Documentation Meeting Notes Attendees: Dan Roussin (CDOT), Alisa Babler (CDOT), D’Wayne Gaymon (CDOT), Roland Wagner (CDOT), Kathy Eastley (GARCO), Betsy Suerth (GARCO), Carey Gagnon (GARCO), Rocky Shepard (CDI), David Millar (F/P), Lee ___ (SGM) and Sam Otero (8140) Note: the information presented below is not intended to provide the full context of all the discussions, but to provide the highlights or primary points. High Points of Discussion 1. To date, the Applicant has submitted the PUD/Preliminary Plan application and received comments requiring additional data/clarifications prior to being deemed complete. The estimated PC Hearing dates being sometime in June/July. 2. Four meetings have been held between Applicant and CDOT over the past year. Beyond the requirements for preparing the traffic study, CDOT requested a three step process (of sorts) while moving towards an Access Permit: a. Traffic analysis b. Intersection concept development (near and long term) c. Level 3 Traffic Impact Report 3. Coordination of the processes is required and running them in parallel is acceptable, assuming major milestones can be achieved. Applicant (Sam) indicated that a schedule could be developed to assist in this effort. 4. GARCO is currently assessing 28 State/County intersections to establish priorities for further analysis and possible funding. GARCO staff will be taking their findings to the BOCC in the near term to gain further direction. In addition, public outreach will be initiated to gain input on the process. CR 113/SH 82 is one of the primary intersections being assessed and concepts have been developed by SGM. SGM indicated that this intersection, in their opinion, currently warranted a signal due to pm peak volumes. CDOT (Alisa) stated that pm peak volumes alone would not necessarily create the warrant for a signal. However, both (GARCO/CDOT) agreed that special conditions at this location may exist and support the placement of a signal (further discussion is necessary). 5. CDOT (Dan) requested that the County involve CDOT directly in their intersection analysis process going forward and GARCO (Betsy) agreed. 6. Applicant (Sam) inquired if SGM could provide applicant a copy of their intersection concepts developed for the CR 113/SH 82 intersection. 7. GARCO (Kathy) stated that it remains the responsibility of the Applicant to gain a complete understanding of the State requirements associated with the full intersection (west and east) and proceed towards gaining an access permit prior to Final Plat. Attachment H CDOT Documentation 8. GARCO will continue their intersection assessment process with much of the primary effort to be completed before the June/July timeframe. 9. Development timing for the Applicant will be market driven, but it is anticipated that development construction will be initiated in 2014/2015. 10. CDOT (D’Wayne) mentioned that the project may require both a construction access permit (for reclamation and intersection construction) versus a final project access permit. 11. CR 113 is the priority roadway and easements shown on developed mapping on the east side should be verified. 12. Interim conditions – concepts discussed that would remain within existing rights‐of‐ way and provide some initial intersection benefits. 13. Final conditions – concepts discussed that would achieve staking and intersection spacing requirements for full buildout conditions. 14. CDOT (Alisa) requested that an assessment of performance for interim condition concept be performed to determine when it no longer provides benefit. 15. CDOT (Dan) indicated that continued coordination between all parties is critical for this process going forward. Attachment H CDOT Documentation