HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.0 Application to DRMS5 Mile Pit
March 2016
112(c) Application to the Colorado Division of
Reclamation, Mining, and Safety
By:
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Elam Construction, Inc.
Represented by:
)1( Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLLC
11541 Warrington Court Plane: (303) 346-5196 Fax (303)-346-6934
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail: info@lewicki.biz
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT B LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT C PREMINE AND MINE PLAN MAPS
EXHIBIT D MINING PLAN
EXHIBIT E RECLAMATION PLAN
EXHIBIT F RECLAMATION MAPS
EXHIBIT G WATER INFORMATION
EXHIBIT H WILDLIFE INFORMATION
EXHIBIT I SOILS INFORMATION
EXHIBIT J VEGETATION INFORMATION
EXHIBIT K CLIMATE INFORMATION
EXHIBIT L WORST CASE RECLAMATION SCENARIO
EXHIBIT M OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED
EXHIBIT N RIGHT OF ENTRY
EXHIBIT 0
OWNERS OF AFFECTED LAND AND MINERAL TO BE MINED
EXHIBIT P MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN TWO MILES
EXHIBIT Q PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICES TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
EXHIBIT R PROOF OF FILING WITH COUNTY CLERK
EXHIBIT S PERMANENT MAN-MADE STRUCTURES
RULE 1.6.2(1)(B)
GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY EXHIBIT
APPENDIX 1 - MAPS
Introduction
Elam Construction is applying for a 112 construction materials reclamation permit with the
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety. This application supersedes any other
previous ones for this site. The 5 Mile Pit will be a sand and gravel pit located 4.3 miles southwest
of Parachute, CO along Interstate Highway 70 (I 70). The site is currently a ranch for grazing cattle.
A deposit of alluvium lies atop of the sandstones of the Mesaverde group. The pit will be on 130.56
acres of land located in the SW1/4 and NE1/4 of Section 33, Township 7S, Range R96W of the 6th
P.M. in Garfield County. The site is accessed from US 6 & 40 via Battlement Parkway and a
private access. Its location can be seen in Exhibit B.
Mining will take place on 40.7 acres of the 130.56 acre permit area.
The permittee for this site is Elam Construction, Inc (Elam). The landowner is 5 -Mile Ranch, LLC.
Elam has a lease with 5 -Mile Ranch for the extraction of gravel.
The entire site will be reclaimed to dry rangeland following mining All maps are found in
Appendix 1.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 i-1
EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land situated in SE1/4 SE1/4 of section 28 and in Section 33, Township 7 South, Range
96 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County Of Garfield, State Of Colorado; said parcel being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, A BLM CAP IN PLACE,
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S00°0155"E ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE
OF 1,369.44 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY S17°45'22'W ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF UNA ROAD A DISTANCE OF 1,065.87 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE
COLORADO RIVER, AS DEFINED IN BOOK 602 AT PAGE 964 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE AS DEFINED, N69°04'13'W A DISTANCE OF 1,170.74 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S85°15'21"W A DISTANCE OF 324.97 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S59°20'30"W A DISTANCE OF 316.71 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S48°53'02'W A DISTANCE OF 337.31 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S20°46'48'W A DISTANCE OF 328.61 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S11°57'01"W A DISTANCE OF 859.10 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S64°03'25"W A DISTANCE OF 1,512.73 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE N55°52'00'W A DISTANCE OF 326.96 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD; THENCE
N34°08'00"E ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 2,309.28 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,080.15 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°48'48", A
DISTANCE OF 420.03 FEET, (CHORD BEARS N37°12'54"E A DISTANCE OF 419.70 FEET) TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY NOO°1912'W ALONG SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE A
DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND CONTINUING ALONG
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
2,815.06 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°1422", A DISTANCE OF 601.36 FEET, (CHORD
BEARS N48°41'42"E A DISTANCE OF 600.21 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-
OF-WAY N55°08'54"E A DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-
OF-WAY N55°29'00"E A DISTANCE OF 2,142.73 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
N87° 19'01 "E ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 94.82 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
N55°29'00"E A DISTANCE OF 299.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
SECTION 28; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01 °57'23"E ALONG SAID EASTERLY
BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 157.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL
CONTAINING 130.558 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 A-1
Mine Entrance: 39.40064 N, 108.10525 W
Map data shown is from the USGS Parachute Quadrangle,
Colorado -Garfield County, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic).
0' 3000' 6000' Mine entrance latitude and longitude is measured from said quadrangle.
EXHIBIT C
Map C-1 Baseline Conditions
Map C-2 Mine Plan
Map C-3 Cross Sections
PREMINE AND MINE PLAN MAPS
5 Mile Pit March 2016 C- 1
EXHIBIT D MINING PLAN
1. General Mining Plan
The permit area for the 5 Mile Pit is 130.56 acres. 51 acres of that area will be disturbed as part of
mining operations. 40.7 acres will be the mining pits, with the remaining area consisting of roads,
topsoil/overburden storage piles, and the detention pond. Sand and gravel for use in making
construction materials products, will be mined onsite. Crushing, screening, and washing of material
will all take place on site. Asphalt and concrete production will take place on site. Reclamation will
occur concurrently with mining, as mining progresses from east to west. Table D-1 shows the
mining areas for the site.
Table D-1 Mining Areas
Mining Phase Area
1
14.7
Acres
2
9.5
Acres
3
16.5
Acres
Total
40.7
acres
Mining will stay at least 100 feet from the railroad right of way, and at least 200 feet from the
Colorado River. Mining activity will stay at least 50 feet away from the rest of the permit boundary.
Setbacks of this size ensure the protection of outside structures from excavation related impacts.
Topsoil and overburden berms may be constructed inside the above listed setbacks as part of noise
and visual mitigation.
Blasting will not take place at the 5 Mile Pit.
2. Mining Timetable
Production is planned at around 150,000 tons per year. The deposit is believed to contain roughly 1
million tons. Based on these calculations, the pit could be mined out in roughly seven years.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 D- 1
However, market forces dictate aggregate production, and therefore the mine life discussed here is
only an educated guess.
Table D-2 Mining Timetable
Mining Phases Time to Complete
1
2.5 years
2
1.5 years
3
2.5 years
Final Reclamation
0.5 years
Total
7 years
3. Mine Facilities and Operation
The following activities will take place at the 5 Mile Pit:
• Crushing and screening
• Washing of rock
• Asphalt manufacture
• Concrete manufacture
Equipment to support these activities will include portable plants, excavators, and haul trucks.
4. Topsoil and Overburden Handling
Topsoil and overburden on site ranges from six to twelve feet thick. The upper 12 to 18 inches is
likely to be usable soil, and therefore the upper 12 inches will be salvaged for use in reclamation.
Topsoil and overburden will be stored in the berms shown on Map C-2. These berms are required
as part of the approved Garfield County permit. Each berm will be vegetated within 180 days of
completion. These berms will contain a total volume of 250,000 CY of overburden and topsoil.
Roughly 65,000 CY of that will be topsoil. Topsoil will be kept separate from overburden, in its
own berm.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 D- 2
Over 640,000 CY of overburden will be generated over the course of the mine's life, with the
majority of it being directly placed as backfill for reclamation.
5. Water Handling
Pit dewatering will be necessary to mine to depths desired by Elam. Perimeter dewatering ditches
will be installed below the operational floor of the pit, and a dewatering pump placed at the low
point of these ditches to facilitate dewatering. Placing the dewatering pump below the floor grade
allows dewatering operations to intercept the ground water before it can interact with the disturbed
areas of the site. Details regarding water handling can be found in Exhibit G.
The dewatering pump will be moved during the mine's life, but will typically be in the southwest
most corner, so to minimize the distance to the detention pond.
6. Schedule of Operations
The 5 Mile Pit will operate from 7 am to 8 pm Monday through Saturday from March through
November. From December to February, it will operate between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through
Saturday. No regular nighttime activities are anticipated. Occasional equipment repair or
maintenance may be conducted at night, but all lighting will be kept to a minimum and directed
inward.
7. Garfield County Impacts and Environment Impacts
The 5 Mile Pit will impact Garfield County roads and similar services. How these impacts are
addressed is covered in the Garfield County Special Use Permit, that is already approved.
Environmental impacts include air, water, and noise. Elam will obtain, and comply with, all
required permits and laws related to these environmental impacts.
8. Import Materials
The pit may accept concrete and asphalt materials that have been removed from existing sites in
order that they can be recycled through the plants on site. Fill material may also be accepted into
the mine site. Fill material will be spread out on the mined out pit floor and will be blended into the
5 Mile Pit March 2016 D- 3
final landscape. Some material may also be re -sold as construction material. None of this material
can be accepted by the Operator unless the attached form is filled out by the entity bringing the
material to the site. The form provides an assurance that all material brought to the site is inert and
has no toxic or acid forming material above acceptable limits.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 D- 4
Affidavit for Import of Materials into 5 Mile Pit
Date or Time Period of Import:
Description of Import Material:
Entity Providing Material to Pit (not the trucking Company):
I hereby certify that the material described above and brought to the 5 Mile Pit site is inert, which
means it is free from any chemicals, toxic substances, acid forming material, or any other material
which would violate the material waste disposal laws of the State of Colorado.
Signature Written Name of Signer
Signer's Position in Company Company
Date:
5 Mile Pit March 2016 D- 5
EXHIBIT E
1. General Reclamation Plan
RECLAMATION PLAN
5 Mile Pit will disturb 51 acres of the permitted 130.56 acres as part of mining. 40.7 acres will be
the mine pits, while the remainder will be berms, roads, and the detention pond. The reclamation
breakdown of the site is as follows:
Table E-1 Reclaimed Areas
Post Mine Land Use
Area (acres)
Dry rangeland
34.70
Lakes
16.30
Undisturbed
m
79.56
Total
130.56
Reclamation will be pursued contemporaneously with mining. Backfilling to the final contour, as
shown on Map F-1, will take place as mining progresses. The final shape of the reclaimed lakes
will be like that shown on Map F-1, although there might be small variation in the shoreline so
that the lakes appear organic. The maximum length of mined out, unbackfilled highwall is 1000
feet. No more than 400 feet of backfilled slope will be untopsoiled at any time.
Final reclamation slopes will be 3H:1V down to 10 feet below the anticipated water level, and
then 2H:1 V to the bottom. If no DRMS approved water right is in place for the consumptive of
exposed groundwater, than mining and reclamation will stop at 4990'. Map F-2 shows this
scenario.
The post -mine land use of the site will be predominantly dry rangeland, like the pre mine
condition, with the addition of the ground water lakes.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 E-1
2. Topsoil Replacement
Topsoil will be replaced at a depth of 6-12 inches across all appropriate slopes. Areas that are
more than five feet below the water line may not be topsoiled. Once topsoil has been placed on
an area, it will disced or harrowed prior to seeding.
3. Haul Roads and Access
All of the internal haul roads and parking area around the office and scale house will be topsoiled
following the completion of mining The access connection to Battlement Parkway will be left in
place for the use of the landowner.
4. Reclamation Timetable
Reclamation of the 5 Mile Pit will mostly be completed concurrently with mining Therefore,
refer to Table D-2 in Exhibit D for a timetable of the operation's life, including reclamation.
5. Revegetation Plan
Following the placement of topsoil, seeding will take place in the next soonest appropriate
planting season. This will either be in the spring (March 15 -April 15) or in the fall (September
15 -November 15). The topsoil will be disked or harrowed in advance of seed application.
Table E-1 shows the seed mix and seeding rates that will be applied at the 5 Mile Pit.
Table E-2 Seed Mixes
Temporary Seed Mix
Plant
Seeding rate (lbs of PLS/ac)
Western wheatgrass
16
Siberian wheatgrass
11
Orchardgrass
4
ussian wi ry
10
Bottlebrush squirreltail
9
50
Reclamation Seed Mix
Plant
5 Mile Pit March 2016
E-2
Indian ricegrass
18
18
Bottlebrush squirreltail
Western wheatgrass
40
Galleta grass
6
Streambank wheatgrass
11
i
Bluebrunch wheatgrass
18
Tota l—
111
Broadcast seeding will be the method used to seed the site. If drill seeding is used anywhere, the
seed application rate from Table E-1 will be halved. Mulch will be crimped into the revegetated
areas at a rate of 2000 lbs/ac. No fertilizer will be used.
6. Post -Reclamation Site Drainage
Following mining and reclamation, the 5 Mile Pit will capture a portion of the run off that left
the site prior to mining This will be due to the presence of the lakes, which will have an
effective storage of over 100 ac -ft ac -ft above their static water level. Revegetation according to
DRMS and NRCS standards will return the non -lake areas of the site to the same drainage
patterns and capacities as before.
Details regarding surface water can be found in Exhibit G.
7. Revegetation Success Criteria
Revegetation will be deemed adequate when erosion is controlled, and the vegetation cover is
similar to the existing cover, and is considered satisfactory according to Division standards.
8. Monitoring Reclamation Success
Monitoring the reclamation on an ongoing basis will ensure its success. The operator plans to use
the local NRCS office to determine the capacity of the reclaimed land to control erosion. If
minor changes or modifications are needed to the seeding and reclamation plan, revision plans
will be submitted to the Division. It is hoped that the Division will provide assistance in
evaluating the success of the ongoing reclamation process. Information on all areas disturbed and
reclaimed as well as any other important items regarding the reclamation will be submitted in the
5 Mile Pit March 2016 E-3
annual reports to the Division, Garfield County and Division of Parks and Wildlife will also be
consulted on the progress of the reclamation.
9. Weed Control
Measures will be employed for the control of any noxious weed species. The objective of this
weed management plan is to control undesirable plants on the 5 Mile Pit property. Plants
identified through the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (C.R.S. 35-5.5) and the Garfield County
Noxious Weed List as undesirable and designated for management within the county will be
removed. These plants identified as noxious weeds will be managed by control measures. A
Weed Control Plan will be utilized as follows:
1) Each April, a weed survey will be taken of the permit area.
2) If any patches or plants have been identified, they will be sprayed by backpack sprayer or
4 -wheeler using chemicals approved for use by the weed control staff of Garfield County.
3) After reclamation, weed surveys and spraying will continue until the perennial cover and
production of the site have met DRMS requirements and bond release has been obtained.
The Division and Garfield County Weed Program staff will be consulted regarding any weed
infestation areas and any control measures prior to their initiation. The plan does not contemplate
total weed removal on the property. Past experience has shown that some initial weed cover in
the first year following the retopsoiling is beneficial to the reclamation effort in rangeland site.
Weeds tend to provide shade for new grasses, are a means of holding snow on the seedbed longer
and protecting it from wind and water erosion until the planted species have taken hold.
During all phases of the mining operation the permit area will be monitored closely every year,
through which the operator may determine if any additional weeds have grown. If any new
species of weeds are found, Garfield County Weed Program and the Division will be consulted
in order to formulate the best plan for the new infestation.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 E-4
EXHIBIT F RECLAMATION MAPS
Map F-1 Reclamation Plan
5 Mile Pit March 2016 F-1
EXHIBIT G
1. General
WATER INFORMATION
Mining of an alluvial deposit like the 5 Mile Pit will involve affecting local ground water and
surface water. In general, any water encountered by operations will be rerouted away from on site
activities to protect its quality. Surface water from the surrounding area will be allowed to enter the
pit. Surface water runoff from within the site will be routed to the mining pit as well. Ground water
encountered during mining will be pumped out and discharged via a Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment discharge point.
2. Surface Water
The Colorado River is located over 200 feet south of the mining area. No ditches or laterals cross
the permit property. Drainage within the permit boundary is mostly sheet flow to the Colorado
River with some local gully and rills paths. Wetlands located on the property are delineated on Map
C-1, and mining avoids these. Local drainage basins and drainage paths for before, during, and after
mining can be seen on Maps C-1, C-2, and F.
The 100 -year floodplain crosses through the site. No permanent fill is being placed within the
floodplain. The mining pits, and then remaining lakes, are sumps during storm events, reducing the
severity of the storm flows in the immediate area.
2.1 Run Off Calculations
The drainage basins (A & B) uphill of the property (See Figure 1) are both directed via existing
storm water structures around the proposed mining area. The culverts and channels that cross the
property will be maintained by Elam during operations.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 G-1
PERMIT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CHANNEL
(outside of disturbance area)
•
L1
■
EXISTING CHANNEL & CULVERT
(outside of disturbance area)
5 Mile Pit March 2016
Figure 1 — Off Site Drainage Basins
G-2
LIP
34
Disturbed area runoff will all drain to the pits during mining. The topsoil and overburden storage
berms will be vegetated upon construction to ensure they do not discharge additional sediment off
site during storms. The runoff calculations for the disturbed area of the 5 Mile Pit are as follows:
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff Tue Feb 23 15:04:34 2016
Project: 5 Mile
Project: Mining Runoff
Location: 5 Mile Pit
Present
1. Runoff Curve Number (CN)
Cover description
Open Space -Poor (<50% grass)
CN (weighted):
Total Area:
89.0
50.527 Acre
By: B Langenfeld Date: 02/23/16
CN Soil Group Area(Acre)
89 D 50.527
2. Runoff
Return Period: 100 YEAR
Rainfall, P: 2.70 in
Runoff, Q: 1.6310 in
Runoff Volume: 6.8673 Acre -Ft
Runoff Curve Number and Runoff
Project: 5 Mile
Project: Reclaimed Lakes
Location: 5 Mile Pit
Developed
Tue Feb 23 15:02:02 2016
By: B Langenfeld Date: 02/23/16
1. Runoff Curve Number (CN)
Cover description CN Soil Group
Area(Acre)
Open Space -Poor (<50% grass) 89 D 34.252
Water Surface 100 16.275
CN (weighted) :
Total Area:
92.5
50.527 Acre
2. Runoff
Return Period: 100 YEAR
Rainfall, P: 2.70 in
Runoff, Q: 1.9272 in
Runoff Volume: 8.1146 Acre -Ft
The total capacity of the mining area during operations is 380+ ac -ft. There will be over 100 ac -ft of
storage above the lake level in the post mine condition of the site. In both cases, there is more than
5 Mile Pit March 2016 G-3
enough capacity to hold the 100 -year event runoff on site. Any storm water captured during mining
will pass through the dewatering system and detention pond prior to discharge. There will be no
adverse impact to the site discharge by the mining and reclamation operations of the 5 Mile Pit.
3. Ground Water
During the mining of the alluvium, the ground water roughly 10 feet below the surface will be
exposed. This exposure will be limited, since pit dewatering will quickly move it back into the river
directly. However, the exposure of this ground water and the pit dewatering will both necessitate an
augmentation plan for the life of the operation. Such a plan will be in place with the Colorado
Division of Water Resource prior to the exposure of ground water on site.
Nearby wells that have been identified are located on Map C-1, as best as possible using mapping
data from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Only one well is located within 600 feet of
the pit, and that is a well owned by RTZ Industrial, just south of the southeast corner of the pit. This
well was part of an augmentation plan for this site, but the augmentation plan is no longer
applicable. Therefore, the well may be abandoned. In the event that any impact is detected by the
well owners, Elam will work with them to restore full function of said wells.
4. Water Consumption for the Operation
Water will be used in the following manner at the 5 Mile Pit:
Table G-1 Mining Water Consumption
Annual Water Usage
Dust control
8.4 ac-ft
In
Crushing and Screening
0.3 ac-ft
hAsnhalt Dlan
n z ird+
1
4% of Mined Material
4.4 ac-ft
Tot.
13.4 ac-ft
5. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Elam Construction will have an approved NPDES permit from the Water Quality Control Division
of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment prior to any discharge.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 G-4
EXHIBIT H WILDLIFE INFORMATION
See the attached Wildlife Assessment Report.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 H-1
. .. • AI
•
'0,44 • :if:.
. • .
•
• • •„
• roi; . •
-• - ' ' .
August 2007
0222 BOBCAT LANE • REDSTONE • COLORADO • 81623
PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 • CELL: (970) 309-4454
EMAIL: ERIC.PETTERSON@STARBAND.NET
•
RTZ Gravel Pal
Wig4fe Assessment Report Arca 2007
1 SUMMARY
This Wildlife Assessment Report details the wildlife use & potential impacts and provides
recommended mitigation measures for the proposed operation and development of a series of
gravel pits, approximately 4.5 west of Parachute in Garfield County, Colorado (see Figure 1).
The proponent (RTZ Industries) is proposing the mining and extraction of approximately 600,000
yards of gravel over a project area of 78 acres. It is anticipated that the mining will occur in three
phases and that the reclamation will entail open water ponds. Future residential development of
the property may occur, but these activities are not formally proposed at this time. The proposed
mining schedule will be 150,000 tons/year for approximately ten years. This report is for the
Garfield County Special Use Permit Application process.
The site is located adjacent to the Colorado River (on a site referenced on USGS Topographic
maps by the name "Una'), in an area bordered to the east by Garfield County Road 302, and
existing and active gravel pit operations, to the north by the Union Pacific Rail Road line, and
Interstate 70. To the west of the property is undeveloped land. The southern boundary of the
property is the Colorado River. The legal description for the property is NW 1/4, Section 33,
Township 7 South, Range 96 West, 6t' Principal Meridian,
The property can be divided into three habitat types: 1. Uplands are dominated by greasewood
(Sancobatus vermiculatus) flats, 2. Previously disturbed and excavated borrow pits (used to berm
the Colorado River with levees in the recent past) and 3. Cottonwood riparian woodlands
immediately adjacent to the Colorado River.
This wildlife analysis is conceptual, based on information provided by Zancanella and Associates.
This analysis is based on initial project level planning, and final design and planning of the project
may change with feedback from Garfield County, US Army Corp of Engineers, CDOW, and other
regulatory entities.
1.1 EVALUATED SPECIES
Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from USFWS recovery plans,
Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat
mapping, discussions with CDOW Area Biologist John Broderick, CDOW Aquatic Biologist Anita
Martinez, various scientific studies and reports, as well as field reviews. The US Fish and Wildlife
list of Threatened and Endangered Species was used to determine if any species potentially
occurred within or adjacent to the property. Additionally, the Colorado Division of Wildlife's list of
Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concem was referenced to determine if any species had
potential habitat on or adjacent to the property (see:
http://wildlife.state.co. uslWild IifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/ListOfThre
atenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm for the complete CDOW list).
Research was conducted by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services to determine relevant habitat
associations, life history traits, the rangewide or statewide distribution of known populations, and
current status and trend of each species.
The Colorado Natural Heritage database was consulted to ascertain the existence of known
occurrences within the project area. Habitat surveys were conducted in April 2007 by Eric
Petterson, Principal Ecologist of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc, and in May 2007 by Eric
Petterson, and Mindy Wheeler, Plant Ecologist with WP Natural Resource Consulting, LLC.
:KY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 1
R77 (Wave/Pits
lY�ildkft As:rmrcnt 1 o7 Axtgurt 2007
Species chosen for impacts analysis have high biological, political, and public interest, as well as
regulatory guidance. Individual wildlife species and groups not specifically mentioned in this
assessment are not "insignificant", they are just not presently at issues because the limited extent
of the proposed gravel mining operations would avoid or minimally impact these unmentioned
species and their habitats.
The following selected species either have habitat on or adjacent to the property:
o Elk
o Mule Deer
o Bald Eagle (Delisted from ESA on July 8, 2007)
o Yellow -billed Cuckoo (Federal Candidate Species)
o River Otter (State Threatened)
o Colorado Pikeminnow (Federally Endangered)
o Razorback Sucker (Federally Endangered)
o Humpback Chub (Federally Endangered)
o Bonytail Chub (Federally Endangered)
The property contains limited roosting habitat for bald eagles, despite the fact that Targe diameter
cottonwood trees have recently fallen down. The live cottonwood trees, for the most part, are too
small in diameter to adequately provide suitable roosting sites.
The Colorado River in the vicinity of the project site contains habitats for the four Endangered fish
species. Critical habitat as delineated by US Fish and Wildlife Service, within the stretch of river
adjacent to the property only exists for razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow.
Colorado River cutthroat trout (State Species of Concern) has suitable habitat in many of the
perennial streams along the Colorado River tributaries. The development of the property should
not impact the ability of this species to utilize suitable riverine habitats near the project area.
Colorado River cutthroat trout generally do not utilize the mainstem of the Colorado River aside
from incidental movements and incidental flushing during high water events.
River Otter (State Threatened) has suitable habitat within the Colorado River. No decreases to
instream flows within the Colorado River will occur due to this project. RTZ has tiled for
augmentation water rights in order to offset potential out -of -priority depletions due to consumptive
use from gravel mining operations, dust control, and evaporative losses. Please see Section 3.7
below for more information. As the project has no planned activities that would have direct impacts
to fish populations in the Colorado River, this project should have no impacts on river otter
populations or their habitat.
The project has been designed to avoid significant wetland areas on the property, as well as
riparian habitats adjacent to the Colorado River. Incidental impacts to wetlands must be in
compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as regulated by the US Army Corp of
Engineers (Colorado and Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office).
1141
Roo MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 3
wildlife A rs',nient Report
4
RIZ Gravel Pits
1610 Arra mai Report _- - _4 ,f 2007
1.2 FIGURE 1: LOCATION OP RTZ PROPERTY
Legend
Land Status
OWNERSHIP
II BLM
0 Private
7 State
USPS
17.2 1t7Z-boundary
et.Rocky Mountain
Ecolo9ka1 Services, Inc.
• 0222 Bobcat lane. Redstone, CO 81623
970.9a3.2190
eric.psltersoreeterba does
Ownership
RTZ Industrial Gravel Pitts
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure
1
Drawn By: Eric Patterson
Date: May 2607
Scale: 1:57.255
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICA1. SERVICES, INC. 5
R FZ Gracval Pik I IR fa "Waimea Report AsoiL2007
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIES BIOLOGY
The upland areas, dominated by greasewood shrublands, also has infrequent rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Japanese brome (Bromus
japonicus), wooly plantain (Plantago patagonica), and widely scattered saltbush (Atriplex
confertifolia). In general, these habitats are produced by highly alkali soils. The understory plant
diversity observed was low, but this may have been due to the time of year the site was visited.
Past and current grazing of these areas occurs, and this also may have negatively impacted the
understory plant diversity on this site.
Within the borrow -pit areas on the property, vegetation and habitats are dominated by consecutive
rings of vegetation around the pits, as likely determined by water pooling and subsequent soil
moisture regimes. Around the edges of the borrow -pits, cottonwood (Populus deltoids) is present,
but is dying off due to insufficient soil moisture. Within this zone, the noxious weed tamarisk
(Tamarix ramosissima) dominates the current vegetation, and widely scattered Russian olive
(Elaegnus angustifolia) (also a noxious weed) exists. Within the basins of the borrow pits,
vegetation is dominated by coyote willow (Safix exigua), tamarisk, cattail (Typha lafifolia), and
patches of hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus). Yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinale) and
knotweed (Polygonum douglasii) was also common in the disturbed areas_
Along the riparian floodplain adjacent to the Colorado River, a stand of cottonwood ranging from
young to mature in age classification dominated the site. The understory of the stand was very
dense with coyote willow, tamarisk, Russian olive, and small patches of cattail. Grasses in this area
were dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis stride), reed canarygrass (Phelaroides arundinacee) and
common reed (Phragmites autralis).
2.1 EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITAT AND USE
Wildlife use patterns within the area are described based on existing habitat types, indirect evidence
of use (scat, prints, etc.), and direct observation of wildlife species. Due to the time of year,
summertime wildlife species using the site (mostly birds) would have been virtually impossible to
visually detect. Discussions of potential impacts to wildlife and habitat follow in Section 3 below.
Mule Deer
Current CDOW NDIS maps delineate lowland riparian forests and adjacent upland shrubtand
habitats both north and south of the project area and along the Colorado River as mule deer winter
range. Areas north of the interstate, and partially within the project area are delineated as severe
winter range, and areas south of the Colorado River as a winter concentration area. Based on more
intensive, site specific inventories of the property, there was no difference of habitats along the
severe winter range delineation line dossing the property. However, the presence of the existing
gravel mining operations immediately to the east of the project area, and the busy county road
would likely produce human activity levels and traffic that would preclude full deer use of the eastern
end of the property.
Deer use of the property during the winter months was evidenced by scat. Deer use likely begins
during early winter, as snows begin to accumulate in pinyon -juniper (Pinus edulis and Juniperus
osteosperma, respectively) habitats. Deer would likely begin to move out of the project area in the
early spring, as snowmett on southfac Ing slopes facilitates an eater green -up of potential browse
species. The number or amount of deer utilizing the property could not be determined solely based
on scat and tracks observed.
In discussions with CDOW Area Biologist John Broderick, gas development of the little Alkali Creek
area and Samson Mesa area has pushed wintering deer into riparian forests areas along the
101141
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAI. SERIICFS, INc.
jt7Z Glave! Pili _. _. _ ..
Wild4'i Asstumsnl Resort .Avert 2007
Colorado River. Therefore increased deer use of the RTZ property and surrounding habitats may be
a recent phenomenon, which would likely continue for the next few years while the natural gas
resources in the area are being developed. After gas pads are established, and drilling activities
diminish, mule deer may once again utilize habitats along these mesas. However, with the direct
loss of habitat to roads, well pads, and other associated infrastructure, and likely foreseeable
persistent human activities in the area, some continued level of mule deer use of riparian habitats
for winter ranges will likely persist for some time.
There was no evidence of mule deer fawning activities on the property.
Elk
Current CDOW NDIS maps delineate most of the river bottom habitats south of the Colorado River
and south of the project area as elk winter range and elk winter concentration areas. Based on
more intensive site surveys, elk use of the property was evident from significant amounts of scat.
The presence of the gravel mine operations and county road 302 immediately east of the project
area likely precluded significant elk use of the eastern side of the project area, as evidenced by lack
of scat.
In discussions with CDOW Area Biologist John Broderick, gas development of the LittleAikak Creek
area, and Samson Mesa area has pushed wintering elk further north across the Colorado River,
onto the shrubby upland habitats on and around the RTZ property. However, on the project area,
the most significant evidence of elk use was in the riparian bottomland forests adjacent to the
Colorado River. Elk appear to migrate to the south after snows begirt to melt in the springtime, and
move into higher elevations on Battlement Mesa Therefore increased elk use of the RTZ property
and surround'mg habitats may be a recent phenomenon, which would likely continue for the next few
years while the natural gas resources in the area are being developed. After gas pads are
established, and drilling activities diminish, elk may once again utilize habitats along these upland
mesas. However, with the direct loss of habitat to roads, we pads, and other assmiated
infrastructure, and likely foreseeable persistent human activities in the area, some continued level of
elk use of riparian habitats for winter ranges will likely persist for some time, and elk use of the area
will be compromised.
There was no evidence of elk calving activities on the property.
Bald Earle
After the ESA was passed in 1973, the bald eagle was listed as endangered throughout the lower
48 states except in five states, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it
was listed as threatened. Based on geographic location, the FWS established five recovery regions.
The distribution, recovery goals, and implementation of protection for the bald eagle varied widely
from region to region. A recovery team was established for each region which prepared a recovery
plan describing the terns and tasks necessary to help improve the bald eagle population specific to
each location. The five regions are as follows: Northern States, Chesapeake Bay, Southeast.
Southwestern, and Pacific (FWS 1995b). The bald eagle was deksted from the Erdargered
Species List due to meeting of recovery targets on July 8, 2007.
Historically, bald eagles nested throughout North America. Population numbers greatly deaeased
during the 1900s due to shooting, habitat alteration, pesticide use (Ly DDT) and other
actions. Since being listed, the population has greatly increased so that there are breeding
populations in the Canadian provinces, in all but two states in the United States, and in Mexico
(though populations are limited), In Colorado, known nesting bald eagles have increased in numbs
from only one pair to over 21 pairs in the last two decades (Gross 1998).
114
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECowcTcAL SERVicEs, INcL
RIZ tri e/ WildOzjesarmint Roca Awl 2007
The bald eagle is an uncommon -to -locally -common winter resident in western valleys, in mountain
parks, and on the eastem plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1994). During the winter they
congregate around larger rivers, open lakes, and reservoirs, where they roost in large or small
numbers on cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and conifer snags adjacent to these water bodies. In 1995,
up to 1,000 wintering bald eagles were documented in the State (Gross 1998). Crippled waterfowl,
carrion, and small mammals provide food. Hunting is typically conducted from a perch near water.
In the summer, many bald eagles migrate north, but a few pairs remain in the State. Nesting season
extends typically from February through July, when these raptors construct very large stick nests in
tall deciduous or conifer trees or utilize existing nest structures. Eagles will commonly use the same
nest site for multiple generations.
Threats to bald eagles include management actions that result in the decrease in breeding and
winter habitat quality and quantity. Disturbances within one quarter mile of nests may lead to nest
abandonment and decreased survival (FWS 1995b)
During the past two years, bald eagle have begun to reestablish nest sites within Garfield County,
however, most eagles migrate to the north in mid to late March.
Along the Colorado River, eagles perch on large cottonwood trees adjacent to or hanging above the
river. Current CDOW NDIS mapping indicates that the project area lies within a larger matrix of
roosting sites and winter range. Specific site visits indicate that larger, more suitable cottonwood
trees suitable for roosting are not available on the property, and the property only contains two
cottonwood trees of significant size suitable for roosting. Other potential cottonwood roosting snags
(dead trees) on the property have recently fallen down.
The proposed gravel mining pits are located away from cottonwood woodland forests, and avoid the
best long-term potential habitats on the property.
Yellow -billed Cuckoo
Yellow -billed cuckoos are medium birds (26 to 30 cm long; 55 to 65 g) with long tails. There are two
recognized subspecies of Coccyzus americanus; Coccyzus americanus americanus (the eastern
version) and its western counterpart, Coccyzus americanus occidentalis. These two subspecies are
differentiated by tail, wing and bill length (Hughes 1999).
Yellow -billed cuckoos prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are
often found in woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. In NorthArnerica, their preferred habitats
include abandoned farmland, old fruit orchards, successional shrubland and dense thickets. In
winter, yellow -billed cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub
forest and mangroves (Hughes 1999).
Yellow -billed cuckoos primarily eat large insects including caterpillars, katydids, cicadas,
grasshoppers and crickets. They also occasionally eat bird eggs, snails, small vertebrates such as
frogs and lizards and some fruits and seeds. Parents feed their chicks' regurgitated insects (FWS
2006).
Yellow -billed cuckoos are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are considered
threatened or endangered in several states, and are a candidate for protection under the ESA.
Yellow -billed cuckoos are common in parts of their range, but populations have been declining in
recent years throughout much of their range. This decline is most likely due to habitat loss and
fragmentation. Other treats to cuckoo populations include poisoning from pesticides and other
environmental contaminants and collision with towers and tall buildings during their nocturnal
migration. (Hughes 1999)
Yellow -billed cuckoos occur on the western slope of Colorado, mostly along the larger river systems
where wide riparian systems have provided extensive cottonwood overstories with shrubby
est
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 8
B,TZ.Cried k ftAstumm.1 Rpori Ages -007
understories. Most notably this occurs along the Gunnison and Colorado River systems in the
vicinity of Grand Junction and Delta. The property contains potentially suitable habitat for the
yellow -billed cuckoo at this time.
River Otter
Northern river otter (Lutra canadsnsis) inhabit riparian habitats that may occur from low elevation
deserts to high valleys of Colorado. Otters require permanent water of relatively high quality with an
abundance of fish and/or crustaceans (crayfish) and are usually found in streams with fairly high
flows (a minimum of 10 cfs). During the winter months, otters continue to need streams with
relatively high amounts of open, ice -free water, deep pools, and good access to the shoreline.
Historically, and currently, otters are mostly commonly found in Colorado using lower to moderate
elevation, larger rivers. Otters are also known to have colonized larger ponds, lakes, and flooded
gravel pits.
Fish are the primary food source for otters, particularly slow -swimming fish species. In streams
where they are abundant, crustaceans can make up a significant portion of the otters diet. Most
research indicates that abundant prey is needed to support otter use of an area (Mack 1985, Malvilte
1990, Melquist et al. 1981, and others).
Because of the river otter's aquatic lite, many aspects of the species' behavior and ecology are not
well understood. They are active year round and do not hibernate. Otters in the Upper Colorado
drainage are mostly diurnal in winter and more nocturnal in summer, with the least amount of activity
in late summer and early fall.
River otters are social, forming family groups led by the adult female, who may exhibit territorial
behavior. Yearling otters, unrelated juveniles, and occasional adult otters may join with family
groups.
The river otter once occurred in most of the major river drainages in Colorado, and was extirpated.
Starting in 1976, Colorado started reintroduction efforts in several drainages, with an initial goal of
establishing two populations (Goodman 1984). In 1598 a more intensive reintroduction program
was started by CDOW. River otters are now known to utilize the Eagle and Colorado rivers,
downstream of Dowds Junction, and may occur up the Roaring Fork River system.
River otters use both terrestrial resting sites and dens when not actively moving. Beaver bank dens
are particularly favored sites. Along the Colorado and Eagle Rivers, they accounted for most of the
denning sites used (B. Andree, pers. corn. 2005).
Adult otters apparently have few natural predators, although individuals have been killed by bobcats,
dogs, coyotes, and foxes (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Most mortality is thought to occur from trapping
and road kills. Habitat destruction and wafer pollution have an impact as well.
The Colorado River and riparian woodlands adjacent to the river provide habitat for river otter. River
otter very rarely leave riparian habitats and venture into upland habitats.
Colorado River Endangered Fish
The four endangered fish species existing in the Colorado River are generally found below the
Rifle/DeBeque area, near Grand Junction and further downstream, The US Fish and Wildlife
Service lists the humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail chub (G elegans), Colorado pike irmow
(Ptychocheilus ludas), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act. Endemic to the Colorado River Basin, populations of these fishes had
declined throughout their historic range due largely to habitat loss or habitat degradation (mainly
through dams and water diversions) and introduction of competitive and predatory nonnative fish
species. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery impfe erttietirn Program was
P(411
Roc MOUNT JN ECOLOGICAL. SERVICES, INC. 9
__ __rl Pits Lr'rldeec rrerrmty Rtyort Arrgrtrl2007
established in 1988 with the goal of recovering these four endangered fishes in the face of current
and foreseeable future water depletions from the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Although the proposed project would not likely have any direct impact on these fishes, indirect
effects, namely through post -mining use of ponds, could have indirect impacts on these species;
therefore, they are analyzed in detail below.
Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)
Species Biology & Ecology
The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was fisted as endangered by the FWS on October 23,
1991; critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. The razorback sucker is an endemic
species unique to the Colorado River Basin. Razorback sucker were historically abundant and
widely distributed within warm water reaches throughout the Colorado River Basin. The species can
be identified by its large fleshy subterminal mouth and is the only sucker with an abrupt sharp -edged
dorsal keel behind its head.
Razorback suckers occupy a variety of habitats during their lives. In general, razorback suckers
prefer calmer, flatwater reaches over higher velocity whitewater or canyon reaches (Minckley et al.
1991). Adults occupy shoreline and mainline channel habitats inckiding slow runs, shallow to deep
pools, backwaters, eddies, and other slow velocity habitats associated with sand substrates (Tyus
and Karp 1990; Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). During spawning, preference appears to consist of
gravel and cobble substrates clear of fine materials.
Historically, razorback suckers were found in the mainstem Colorado River and major tributaries in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and in Mexico (Mincidey 1963).
Population declines can be attributed to construction of dams and reservoirs, introduction of
nonnative fishes, and dewatering of the Colorado River system (FWS 1999). In the Colorado River,
most razorbacks are found in the Grand Valley near Grand Junction, Colorado (FWS 1999). In
1991 and 1992, 28 adults were collected from isolated ponds ad}aceri to the Colorado River rear
DeBeque, Colorado (Burdick 1992). Razorback sucker's range in the Colorado River currently
extends upstream to the City of Rifle, Colorado. Most razorbacks have been documented in flooded
gravel pit ponds adjacent to the river. Razorback suckers have beers dated as far upstream
as river mile 183.6 and in 1988 as far as river mile 235 near Rifle, Colorado (FWS 1999; 6uificic
1992). To date, FWS has stocked 10,998 4 to 11 -inch razorback suckers in the upper Colorado
River near Parachute, Colorado. Razorback suckers have been documented drifting over all three
diversion structures (Burdick 2000). The Recovery Program approved plan to stock 102,100 6 -inch
and 30,60012 -inch razorback suckers betamen Rifle and DeBeque Canyon, Colorado **hit the
next five years (FWS 1999).
The three designated areas of critical habitat encompass 1) Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties,
2) Colorado, Delta and Mesa Counties and 3) Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield
Counties (FWS 1994). The Project Area is within a tributary watershed to designated critical habitat
of the Colorado River in Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties, as follows: The Colorado River and
its 100 -year flood plain from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T.6&..
R.93W.. section 16 (6th PM) (Rifle exit) downstream to Westwetec Canyon in T.20S.. R.25E., section
12 (Salt Lake PM) including the Gunnison River and Its 100 year flood plain from the Redlands
Diversion Dam in T.1S., R1W., section 27 (Ute Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River
in T.1S., R.1W., section 22 (Ute Meridian).
,111481 ROCKY MOUNTAIN EcoLn(,IC,U, SERVICES, INC -
10
ilia Grum pjL4 Wild40Asys Ammon' Ramon Algot 2077
Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptichochelius lucius)
Species Biology & Ecology
The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheitus lucius) was listed as endangered by the FWS on March
11, 1967; critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994.
The Colorado pikeminnow (formerly known as the Colorado squawfish) is an endemic species
unique to the Colorado River Basin. It is the largest cyprinid fish native to North America. Spawning
sites are comprised of clean -cobble substrate with deep interstitial voids (FWS 1999). The Colorado
pikeminnow is believed to migrate to pool/riffle areas near the spawning sites. The fish appear to
use deep pools, eddies, or mixing zones as resting areas near the spawning sites (Holden 1999).
Warm water temperature, discharge, and photoperiod (on or near Spring Solstice) are possible
spawning and/or spawning migration cues (Holden 1999). Adult Colorado pikeminnow have been
collected from all habitat types but most frequently from low-velocity areas including runs, eddies,
backwaters, and pooled canyon mouths. During spring (pre -runoff and runoff) adults tend to use
backwaters, flooded mouths of washes, and other low-velocity habitats that are warmer than main
channel habitats. As warm waters and flows recede, they use eddies and other low-velocity habitats
associated with the main channel. During the fall and winter they continue to use lower -velocity
shoreline habitats (Holden 1999).
Historically, Colorado pikeminnow were distributed throughout warm water reaches of the Colorado
River Basin from Wyoming to Mexico. By the 1970's, the fish was extirpated from the lower basin
below Glen Canyon Dam and from portions of the upper basin. Colorado pikeminnow are currently
restricted to the Upper Colorado River Basin and inhabit warm water reaches in the Colorado,
Green, and San Juan Rivers and their associated tribuleries. Population declines can be attributed
to construction of dams and reservoirs, introduction of nonnative fishes, dewatering of the Colorado
River system and the loss of natural hydrology (FWS 1999). In the Colorado River, Colorado
pikeminnow are found in low numbers with recniltment in pulses from infrequent strong year sus
(Osrnundson and Burnham 1998). In the spring of 2000, sixty-five 14 to 18 -inch adult Colorado
Pikeminnow were stocked in the upper Colorado River near Parachute, Colorado. These fish were
fitted with radio -transmitters to monitor movements. Fish have been documented drifting over the
Grand Valley Project Dam. The six designated areas of critical habitat encompass 1) Yampa River,
2) Green River, 3) White River, 4) Gunnison River, 5) Colorado River and 6) San Juan River.
The Project Area is within a tributary watershed to designated critical habitat for the Colorado River
in Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties which reads as follows: Colorado, Mesa and Garfield
Counties; and Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield Counties. The Colorado River and its
100 -year flood plain from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93
W., section 16 (6th Principal Meridian) (Rifle exit) downstream to North Wash, including the Dirty
Devil arm of Lake Powell up to the full pool elevation, in T. 33 S., R 14 E., section 29 (Salt Lake
Principal Meridian).
Bonvtail Chub (Gila eiegans)
Species Biology & Ecology
The bonytail (Gila elegans) was classified as endangered by the FWS on April 23, 1980; critical
habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. Bonytail are considered big or mainstream river species
that prefer pools and eddies. It has an elongated body with a thin caudal peduncle, which g ives the
bonytail its name. Bonytail are closely related to humpback chub (Gita cypha) and roundtail chub
(Gila robusta). Bonytail appear to prefer pools and eddies rather than areas with more current (FWS
1990b). Bonytail in Lake Mohave appear to occupy lacustrine habitat rather than upstream riverine
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC
11
Gr tti Pili WiW1ik Amon* cnl Report Ax us12007
habitat near Hoover Dam_ Cold water releases from Lake Mead are believed to limit the use of the
riverine habitat (FWS 1990b).
Historically, the bonytail was distributed throughout the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin.
Currently the bonytail is restricted to portions of Lake Mohave and Lake Mead and small non -
reproducing populations in upper basin in Desolation and Cataract Canyons (FWS 1990b).
Extensive work since 1974 to develop hatchery stock primarily from Lake Mead was conducted by
the FWS. Stocking in the Upper Colorado River between Palisade and Loma, Colorado is being
considered by the Recovery Program.
The Project Area is adjacent to, but not within, designated critical habitat. Critical habitat was
designated by the FWS in 1994 consisting of portions of the Yampa, Green and Colorado Rivers.
The critical habitat area is described as: Utah, Grand County; and Colorado, Mesa County, the
Colorado River from Black Rocks (river mile 137) in T.10 S., R.104 W, section 25 (6th Principal
Meridian) downstream to Fish Ford in T.21 S., R.24 E., section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian).
Humpback Chub (Gila cvphal
Species Biology & Ecology
The humpback chub (Gila cypha) was classified as endangered by the FWS on March 11, 1967;
critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. The humpback chub is a medium-sized fish
(<500 mm) that is endemic to the Colorado River Basin. The humpback is closely related to the
bonytail (Gila elegans) and the roundtail chub (Gila robusta). The humpback chub requires warmer
water to induce spawning (>20° C). Adult humpbacks appear to prefer white -water canyons;
however, its original distribution is not known. Data in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon indicates
that young utilize shallow areas (FWS 1999).
The original distribution of humpback chub is unknown. Fossil records trace humpback chub to
about 4000 B.C. but the species was not described until the 1940s. Until the 1950s, humpback
chub was known only to occur in the Grand Canyon. Specimens were later documented from the
Upper Green River, the lower Yampa, the White River, and the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.
The largest populations occur in the tittle Colorado and Colorado Rivers in the Grand Canyon, and
in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon in the upper Colorado River_ Fish have also been
documented in DeBeque Canyon and one fish was collected in the Gunnison River (FWS 1999).
The Project Area is adjacent, but not within, designated critical habitat. Critical habitat includes a
portion of the Colorado River approximately 120 river miles downstream from the project area The
designation is as follows: Utah, Grand County; and Colorado, Mesa County. The Colorado River
from Black Rocks in T. 10 S., R. 104 W., section 25 (5th Principal Meridian) downstream to Fish
Ford in T. 31 S., R. 24 E.. section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian).
eta
ktOcKY Mourn -AIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC
12
RZ Ginty) Pits
3 IMPACTS ASSESMENT
IJ%' ___, eAswment Re Alma 2007
This section details the likely impacts of the proposed gravel mining pits on the selected wildife
species listed in this report. Impacts may be from direct changes to habitat, indirect effects of
human occupation, traffic, and use of heavy equipment, and cumulative effects of other surrounding
activities that may have a cumulative impact on wildlife habitat and wildlife use patterns in the area.
3.1 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The proposed gravel mining activities occur within or adjacent to Federally threatened or
endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Federally listed species that occur in
this general area of the State include:
• Canada lynx
• Bald Eagle (Delisted July 8, 2007)
• Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
• Yellow -billed cuckoo (proposed)
• Slender moonwort •
• Black -footed ferret
• Colorado pikeminnow
• Razorback sucker
• Humpback chub
• Bonytail chub
• Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly
Of these Federally listed species, only bald eagle, yellow -billed cuckoo, and the four endangered
fish species have habitats that may be within the vicinity of the property.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife lists a number of species as Species of Concern, State Threatened
and State Endangered. For the complete list, see:
http'//wildlife.state.cc.0 sNVi1dlifeSpeciesfSpecigsOfConcer /Threatened EndangeredList/ListOfThreatenedAndE
ndangeredSpecies.htm
Species listed by CDOW which may have habitats within and near the project area include the
Federally listed species (above), and additionally river otter.
ffel KICKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC
13
RTZGrawl Flu
}Vlkllfi AssesrmgnI Report Amoy( 2007
3.2 IMPACTS TO BALD EAGLE
Bald eagles have been delisted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on July 8, 2007 because the
species has met recovery goals, and signs indicate that the species will continue to recover. Bald
eagles are still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act.
The CDOW WRIS mapping (see Figure 4) indicates that the area contains bald eagle winter ranges
and bald eagle roosting sites. Site survey and verification indicated that the property only contains
marginal bald eagle roost sites, and the availability of suitable roosting that could be impacted by
gravel mining operations on the property is extremely limited. Bald eagle use would further only be
limited to winter time roosting, as no suitable nest trees are available on the property_ Bald eagle
that happen to be roosting on the one tree on the property would likely be flushed by heavy
equipment operation on the property, and human activities would likely preclude all but incidental
bald eagle use of the property. The existing gravel mine operations and busy CR 302 next to the
proposed RTZ pits further decrease the suitability of the site to any extensive bald eagle use.
Gravel mining operations could potentially decrease bald eagle use of some of the mature
cottonwood stands on the southern side of the Colorado River; however this is somewhat
speculatory, as some eagles would be extremely sensitive to gravel mining operations and wouki
abandon the area, while other bald eagles would not be visibly alarmed by operations,- and may
continue to utilize the cottonwood stands undisturbed.
Before bald eagle use of the site could consistently occur, the majority of the cottonwood trees on
the property would have to mature to larger diameter trees with more substantial lateral brandies.
Based on the average size of the existing cottonwood trees, this would not likely occur for another
20+ years.
After mining has completed and flooding of the gravel
pits occur, fish stocking in the ponds could potentially
attract eagle use, but due to the lack of suitable
roosting trees, this is unlikely.
With delisting, impacts to bald eagle would not longer
need consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service,
but bald eagle would still be somewhat protected by
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOf;ICM SF_RVICES, INC.
This is the only suitable bald eagle roosting site on the
property which is adjacent to the river.
14
RTZ GraPei ik-Lr
3.2.1 FiGURE 4: BALD EAGLE HABITAT USE
Atrammit Repoli
Avid 2007
Rocky Mountain
Ecological San/Ices, Inc.
0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, CO 81823
970.893.2180
eric.pettersonastarband.net
Bald Eagle Habitats
RTZ Industrial. Gravel Pits
Garfield County, Colorado
jetCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL Sexvices, INC,
Figure
4
Drawn By: Eric Patterson
Date: May 2007
Scala: 1:15,479
0 0.125 0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Miles
15
1172.c/umiak 4,sessm ni Rrport ,ANgat 20o
• 3.3 IMPACTS TO YELLOW BILLEDCKO
CU O
The property contains young to mature -aged cottonwood stands with shrubby understories. As
previously discussed, these habitat conditions are suitable for yellow -billed cuckoo. The gravel
mine operations, for the most part, avoid direct impacts to these habitat types. The vast majority of
the proposed activities are placed north of the cottonwood woodland types, and into the upland
greasewood communities.
The use and noise of heavy equipment during the gravel mining operations may indirectly scare off
(flush) or diminish the suitability of the habitats on the property for significant yellow -billed cuckoo
use. As little is known about the behavioral responses of cuckoo to human activity and noise, the
likelihood of cuckoo being precluded from using the cottonwood stands is somewhat speculatory.
Some mining operations further away from suitable habitats on the property may not bother
cuckoo, white operations closer to the cottonwood stands may preclude cuckoo use of those
habitats. Further, there may be a differential use of habitats when comparing foraging areas and
nesting areas. Cuckoo may tolerate mining activities to a level that would allow foraging use of the
property, but nesting activities may be (likely be) precluded. All of these statements are somewhat
speculatory based on the paucity of literature on yellow -billed cuckoo in Colorado and their habitat
use patterns and reactions to nearby human/heavy equipment activities, but it is likely safe to
assume that while gravel mining operations are in place, cuckoo use of the cottonwood stands
during the summer months (when cuckoo are in the area) would be compromised to some degree,
with the good possibility of total avoidance of the area. The degree to what activities will preclude
cuckoo use is, at this time, unknown.
•This potential indirect impact to cuckoo habitat will likely persist until gravel operations cease in
approximately 10 years. After such time, potential cuckoo use of the cottonwood woodland habitats
on the property will likely be undeterred.
3.4 IMPACTS TO COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES
The direct impacts to the four Colorado River endangered fish species would be primarily limited to
transport of sediments and/or contaminants into the Colorado River. Although permitting of gravel
mining operations requires submittal of a Stonnwater Management Plan, accidents can occur
which deliver sediments into the Colorado River. Despite this threat, the four Colorado River fish
species have evolved with high levels of sediment loading to their aquatic environments, and it is
highly unlikely that the gravel mining operations would be able to produce a sediment plume thick
enough, orfor a long enough duration that would produce anoxic conditions for these fish species.
Sediment loading into the Colorado River can, however, deposit silt and other fine sediments on
gravel beds and clean g ravelly-cobbly surfaces within the river which can decrease fish egg laying
and hatching success for these fish species. All of the four endangered fish species require clean
gravel beds for successful egg laying and reproduction. Normally. the Colorado Rivers high flow
waters will clean and leave some gravel beds exposed for fish, but it has been determined that
flows at least 12,500 cfs are required to accomplish this. Sediment plumes which occur
immediately before or during egg laying can smother eggs and hatchlings, reducing reproductive
success (USFWS 1999).
Flooding of gravel pits post -excavation can be either a benefit and/or a detriment for the four
endangered fish species. Competition and predation from non-native fish is one of the primarily
reasons for population decreases and subsequent protection of these fish under the endangered
etill
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 16
RIZ GmlelPits EY�ildlifejr�rmarrt ,
ARthol 2Z
110 species act (Dill 1944, Osmundson and Kaeding 1989, Behnke 1980, Joseph et al. 1977, Lanigan
and Berry 1979, Minckley and Deacon 1968, Meffe 1985, Propst and Bestgen 1991, Rinne 1991,
and others). Data collected by Osmundson and Kaeding (1991) indicated that during low water
years, nonnative minnows capable of preying on or competing with larval endangered fishes greatly
increased in numbers.
More than 50 nonnative fish species were intentionally introduced in the Colorado River Basin prior
to 1980 for sportfishing, forage fish, biological control and ornamental purposes (Minckely 1982,
Tyus et al. 1982, Carlson and Muth 1989). Nonnative fishes compete with native fishes in several
ways. The capacity of a particular area to support aquatic life is limited by physical habitat
conditions. Increasing the number of species in an area usually results in a smaller population of
most species. The size of each species population is controlled by the ability of each life stage to
compete for space and food resources and to avoid predation. Some nonnative fishes' life stages
appear to have a greater ability to compete for space and food and to avoid predation in the
existing altered habitat than do some native fishes' life stages. Tyus and Saunders (1996) site
numerous examples of both indirect and direct evidence of predation on razorback sucker eggs
and larvae by nonnative species.
Nonnative fishes often are stocked in and enter rivers from off -channel impoundments. The
periodic introduction of these nonnative fishes into a river allows them to bypass limitations to
reproduction, growth, or survival that they might encounter in the river. Consequently, populations
of nonnative fishes in the river are enhanced. Endangered and other native species in the river
experience greater competition and predation as a result. Tyus and Saunders (1996) concluded
that the nonnative fish impacts played a significant rote in the decline of the Colorado River
endangered fishes,
IDParticularly, three non-native fish can have significant negative impacts on native endangered fish
species: smallmouth bass, northern Dike, and channel catfish have by far the most significant
negative impacts on native Colorado River fish species.
Flooding of the gravel pits may produce habitats for non-native fish species, and intentional
stocking with non-native fish species may be detrimental to the four endangered fish species.
CDOW requires that all water inlets and outlets have screened apertures using < % inch mesh to
prevent accidental fish releases into the Colorado River. CDOW also has a required list of
approved fish for stocking within the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year flood plain within this
section of the Colorado River is approximately 5 feet above high water mark of the rivet If, post
reclamation, the project has potential surface hydrological connection to the Colorado River within
5 feet of the 100 year water level, then only CDOW approved fish species may be stocked in the
gravel pit ponds. But on the other hand, proper management of some of the ponds could improve
habitat for the native fish species.
Post -mining, shaping of outflows of pits that allow for high-water inundation from the Colorado
River, but further allow for subsequent drainage/evaporation during the fall and winter can produce
habitat conditions suitable and desirable for endangered fish use. These temporary shallow pools
allow for warm water temperatures, which assists with rapid growth in young fish. The gentle
outsloping of these ponds would allow for fall drainage and drying of these ponds, which would
prevent these pools from being used by non-native fish.
Water depletions- The project will drill two water wells on the property for needed waters for dust
suppression and gravel mining operations. Further the applicant has provided duallTlIalritation ori
the evaporative loss of water from subsequent flooding of gravel pits. Therefore the applicant has
,
prepare3d and filed a water court application in District Court, Water Division 5 for the waters
needed for dust suppression and gravel mining operations, as well as for addressing minimum
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVI FS, INC 17
1Z. Gravel Pits
�/r%dbfe Arsessrrsent R Atoll -L.2007
• stream flows and evaporative Toss. These waters needed for system augmentation are being
acquired from upstream adjudicated sources.
It is estimated that the water diversion and depletion for gravel production is 4.4 acre feet per year,
which is to be distributed equally by month throughout the year. Of that, it is estimated that 10,000
gallons of water per day will be required for dust control during mining operations. The amount of
water used per year for dust control is approximately 8.4 acre feet, which is to be distributed
equally by month throughout the year. Total water diversion and depletions for gravel production
and dust control are estimated to be 12.8 acre feet annually. Total annual depletions associated
with the gravel mining operations and water evaporation at full build out of the gravel pits will equal
63.8 acre feet. The RTZ gravel pits will be located within 500 feet of the Colorado River in a
shallow, highly porous gravel formation hydraulically connected to the Colorado River. The timing
of depletions from the Colorado River from the uses of the gravel pit ponds are presumed to be
instantaneous.
Depletions to the Colorado River will occur during the historical call period from downstream senior
water right holders on the Colorado River, including in -stream requirements for Colorado River
Endangered fish species. Therefore the applicant has filed for water rights needed to augment
depletions. Augmentation water will be provided from storage water sources pursuant to a contract
with the West Divide Water Conservancy District as necessary to augment ort -of -priority
depletions. The analysis conducted for the RTZ Gravel Pits (as compiled by Balcomb & Green LLC
with the technical assistance from Zancanella & Associates) indicates that 38.8 acre feet of
contract water will be provided to replace the depletions of the gravel mining operations which
includes 10% attributable to transit losses associated with delivery of reservoir storage water.
•As build out of the RTZ Gravel Pits will occur over several years, the applicant's augmentation
obligation will correspond to development of the gravel pit wells. Because full build -out of the RTZ
Gravel Pits will not occur for several years, the Applicant proposes to purchase the augmentation
contract water in two phases. The Applicant has proposed to purchase 31.8 acre feet of the total
estimated contract water required to augment full build out of the first gravel pit (Phase I). As
gravel mining progresses and before additional contract water is needed to augment the
Applicant's increased water depletions, the Applicant will purchase the remaining contract water
required to augment full build out of the second gravel pit (Phase 11).
Following the cessation of mining activities and after the reclamation phase, the only consumptive
use of water will be caused by evaporation from the RTZ Gravel Pits. Total annual evaporative
losses are estimated to be 63.8 acre feet per year. Of that amount, 34.4 acre feet wiH be out -of -
priority during the historical call period from downstream senior water right holders on the Colorado
River (which includes 10% for transit losses from storage reservoirs). Evaporative losses which are
out of priority depletions will be augmented using contract storage water.
Because of this augmentation plan, there will not be any decreases in instream flows which may
have direct and/or indirect impacts to the four Colorado River Endangered fish sperms
In summary, it is unlikely that the gravel mining operations would negatively affect the four
endangered Colorado River fish species; however accidental spills or discharges into the Colorado
River could have temporary negative effects on spawning habitats. The greatest long-term
concems from the gravel pits is the intentional or accidental stocking of the remaining ponds with
non-native fish species, which could escape into the Colorado River and negatively compete with
the four endangered fish species for habitat requirements. Conversely, it is possible to design the
pond(s) with seasonal flooding water regimes that would actually benefit the four endangered fish
'species.
/ RocxY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.
18
KLZ GramtlPu
{ftArmond Rcpgrt Aiewt2007
3.5 IMPACT'S TO MULE DEER HABITAT
Mule deer habitais on the property include both the riparian deciduous woodlands, as well as the
saltbush uplands. The majority of the activities associated with the gravel mining operations occur
within the upland areas, avoiding the riparian woodlands. Despite the avoidance of direct impacts
to best habitat, the mining and operation of the gravel pits, along with truck traffic, heavy equipment
use, and other associated activities will result in mule deer generally avoiding the area around the
gravel pits while such operations are underway. Some light, incidental use of the riparian
woodlands by mule deer along the Colorado River may still continue.
As mule deer generally are only utilizing the area during the winter months, impacts to mule deer
will therefore generally occur only during the winter months. These impacts would include
avoidance of the area, possible increased mortality from increased road use, forcing of deer onto
other adjacent properties, and subsequently more winter competition for resources in the greater
area around the property. Combined with the cumulative impacts of area natural gas exploration
and extraction and increased road traffic, wintering mule deer populrlons in the greater area will
likely decrease due to loss of habitat effectiveness, and direct losses of habitats. The amount of
impact to mule deer populations from this one project (the RTZ gravel pit operations) is likely an
immeasurably small cumulative impact, but still likely contributes to overall negative impacts to
winter range for mule deer in the greater area. During the spring, summer, and fall months, most
deer are utilizing higher elevation habitats. Large riparian cottonwood woodlands along the
.Colorado River do likely support some light year-round use by mule deer, but due to the limited size
of the riparian woodlands on the property, any substantial deer use of these habitats would be
' unlikely during gravel mining operations.
After development of the gravel pits (and subsequent flooding of pits), mule deer will likely return to
using the area, however the loss of upland shrubby habitats, and conversion of upland habitats to
roads and flooded pits will reduce future long-term use of the property, aside from continued use of
undisturbed habitats. With potential mvegetat on of un -used areas (esPecianY if native shrub
species are used that mimic native vegetation profiles), limited mule deer habitat use may return in
areas on the property.
Long-term use of the property is not officially planned at this time; therefore there should be no
long-term continuing indirect impacts due to human uses, domestic dogs, and other mated
human use of the property.
In summary, the conversion of this property to a gravel mine and subsequently an area dominated
by ponds and reclamation grass types will reduce effective mule deer habitats within the area. This
will not necessarily cause measurable decreases in mule deer numbers in the greater area, but will
likely end up having immeasurable impacts on deer survivability and end of winter weights and
health when combined with other habitat akering activities and disturtancs agents within the
greater area.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC
19
MULE_DEER-winter
MULE_DEER-winier
Rocky Mountain
EcaloQtcaI Ssrvfces,
iii*RIDCKY MOUNTAIN EcOLOGICAI. SERVICES, WC.
•
RTZ Gravel Pits
t dlfftAfsassmcnf Blow Asgg rut 2007
3.6 IMPACTS TO ELK HABITAT
Elk wintering on the property has likely been increasing in the last couple of years due to the
extensive natural gas exploration and extraction occurring south of the area, which is occurring in
historic elk winter ranges (Broderick, pers. com. 2007). This has resulted in the increased elk use of
the property, as evidenced by scat as well as *elk trails' through the riparian woodland areas.
The mining and operation of the gravel pits, along with truck traffic, heavy equipment use, and other
associated activities will result in elk generally avoiding the area around the gravel pits while such
operations are underway. Some light, incidental use of the riparian woodlands along the Colorado
River may still continue.
As elk are generally utilizing the area only during the winter months, impacts to elk will therefore
generally occur only during the winter months. These impacts would include avoidance of the area,
possible increased mortality from increased road use, forcing of elk onto other adjacent properties,
and subsequently more winter competition for resources in the greater area around the property. As
the property is only recently being utilized as elk winter range due to natural gas extraction
operations south of the project area, elk use of these winter ranges on the property are a new
phenomenon. After the majority of natural gas extraction operations have completed south of the
project area, elk use of those winter ranges may resume, although habitats will be much more
fragmented due to new roads, well pads, and other infrastructure impacts. Elk would then, possibly,
return to using their more historic Manges and would cease to use the RTZ property. While the RTZ
property is being mined, and areas natural gas fields are being developed, elk will be forced onto
smaller and more fragmented habitats, and use of the RTZ property as a "refuge' would cease.
General levels of natural gas extraction activities in the greater area will keep elk herds moving and
will generally mean that elk must utilize smaller winter ranges, and possibly less optimal foraging
areas. The amount of impact to elk populations from this one project (the RTZ gravel pit operations)
is likely an immeasurably small cumulative impact, but still likely contributes to overall negative
impacts to winter range for elk in the greater area. During the spring, summer, and fall months, elk
are utilizing higher elevation habitats, far away from the RTZ property, but likely still within areas
experiencing some level of gas extraction activities, and thus some level of habitat fragmentation.
After development of the gravel pits (and subsequent flooding of pits), elk may or may not return to
using the area, as this property has never really been a Tong -term winter range area where elk have
shown a high degree of site fidelity. However the loss of upland shrubby habitats on the property,
and conversion of upland habitats to roads and flooded pits will reduce future potential kmg-term
use of the property, aside from incidental use of undisturbed habitats.
Post -mining long-term use of the property is not officially planned at this time; therefore there should
be no long-term continuing indirect impacts due to human uses, domestic dogs, and other
associated human use of the property at this time.
In summary, the conversion of this property to a gravel mine and subsequently an area dominated
by ponds and reclamation grass types will reduce the existing elk use patterns within the area. This
one project will not necessarily cause decreases in elk numbers in the greater area, but may end up
having immeasurable impacts on elk survivability and end of winter weights and health when
combined with other habitat altering activities within the greater area.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC_
21
L.Z_ trawl Prti
3.6.1 FIGURE 4: ELK WINTER RANGE
Wild4ji A,rsesiment /bout 2007
ELK-severe_winter_STATE
ELK-winter_concentration`STATE
ELK -winter range_STATE
Rocky Mountain
Ecological Services, Inc.
0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, CO 81623
970.9133.2190
eric.DettersonCst arba nd .net
joe
Iu)CKY MOUNTAIN ECOJAG:CAL SFAVICFS, INC.
Elk Winter Ranges
RTZ Industrial- Gravel Plts
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure
3
Drawn By: Enc Patterson
Date: May 2007
Scale: 1:15,479
0 0.125 0.25
0.5
0,75
1
.E■ -
..
Miles
22
RTZ Gravel Pits Wildlife Asses:ment Report Alison' 2007
3.7 IMPACTS TO RIVER OTTER
River otter generally require medium to larger sized rivers with abundant prey species (fish), The
Colorado River which runs adjacent to the property provides suitable habitats to support river otter,
and it is likely that river otter occur within the greater area around the property. Because of this,
there is the potential for gravel mining operations to directly or indirectly impact river otter and their
habitats.
As the gravel mining operations have purposefully been set back and away from riparian and
wetland habitats and operations will generally be confined to upland habitats, direct impacts to river
otter are highly unlikely. River otter would have to leave the Colorado River, cross through riparian
woodland habitats, and enter into what effectively will be an industrial area for impacts to occur.
This is not to say that river otter would never enter into an active gravel mining operation, but the
likelihood is very small.
Indirect impacts of the operations that would impact river otter would likely be associated with diurnal
noise and activity, which would occur during the opposite time of day that otters are generally active
(nighttime). During the winter months, otters do become more active during the daylight hours,
which would put them potentially more in conflict with mining activity periods. The level of noise and
activity of the diurnal mining operations would likely preclude long-term or significant otter use of the
riparian areas on the property for bank denning and/or pup rearing.
As permitted, the mining operations should have no impacts to otter prey base and habitats through
following guidance of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) as permitted by Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. Following guidance outlined in these permits should
preclude the most significant potential negative impacts to water quality from the proposed
Alk operations. RTZ has implemented a water depletion augmentation plan which would result in no net
decreases to instmam flows in the mainstem of the Colorado River_
The most significant potential threat to river otter would be from the stocking of the subsequent
ponds with non-native or un -approved fish species. Introductions (even accidental) of non-native
fish have proven to be detrimental to the ecology of indigenous fish species of the Colorado River.
While many fish species would be suitable prey for river otter, management direction has been to
provide native fish and historic fish stocking ratios in order to provide long-term system stability for
river otter repopulation success. CDOW requires that all water inlets and outlets have screened
apertures using < % inch mesh to prevent accidental fish releases into the Colorado River. CDOW
also has a required list of approved fish for stocking within the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year
flood plain within this section of the Colorado River is approximately 5 feet above high water mark of
the river. If, post reclamation, the project has potential surface hydrological connection to the
Colorado River within the 5 foot 100 year water level, then only CDOW approved fish species may
be stocked in the gravel pit ponds.
In summary, the proposed gravel pit operations should have no direct impacts on river otter. There
is the slight chance that river otter could wander into mining areas, but this is extremely unlikely.
Following best management practices should protect otter habitat from most accidental discharges
of sediment into the Colorado River. Stocking of ponds, should be with native Colorado fish species,
or with fish species known to not compete with indigenous fish species of the Colorado River, in
order to keep healthy native fish populations (prey) available for river otter use.
RRc MourrrniN EcoLocicu. SERVICES, INC. 23
•
•
RTZ Gravel Pits
riAtiArrarrmerrt depart About 2007
4 IMPACT MINIMIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present recommendations for consideration to minimize the potential impacts
to wildlife from the proposed mining operations. 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 development.
4.1 LIGHTING & GAME USE
Because the area will likely receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of
the property outside of the mining areas and excessive lighting of roads (beyond what is required for
safe driving conditions) is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Further,
lighting of existing winter range beyond the mining areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from
bright flood -lights illuminating cottonwood woodlands or shrubby uplands).
4.2 ROADS
Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following requirements should be
followed:
o Fences along the roads should be minimized aside for security reasons. Old, non-functional
fences should be removed to facilitate wildlife movement.
o Large or extensive retaining walls (defined as slopes greater than 700) should be minimized,
or if needed, retaining walls longer than 80' in length should have "steps" or other features lo
allow wildlife to cross the area if engineering allows such features.
4.3 FENCES
In order to continue the effective use of the area by big game animals, fencing that would inhibit big
game movement is strongly discouraged. Additionally, existing fencing that is not necessary for
operations should be removed as soon as possible.
Fences to delineate the property should comply with the following specifications:
o Fences should consist of two rails, with the upper rail 44 inches above the ground, and the
top of the bottom rail 24 inches above the ground. This will allow adult animals to easily
jump over fences, even in deep snow, and will allow calves and fawns to crawl under or
pass through the rails.
a For barbed wire fences, middle wires can be smooth woven wire. The bottom wire should
be at least 16' off the ground, 20" would be better, but this may be too high to keep cattle
calves from crawling under the fence.
o Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for big game species to cross, therefore buck
and rail fences are strongly discouraged.
o Prior to construction, snow fencing or silt fencing should be erected at the edge of the
construction areas to contain disturbance to native vegetation by indirect construction
activities (i.e. trampling of vegetation by equipment, etc.).
o If wildlife hazards exist on the property during operations (i.e. deer or elk are in harms way
on the property during operations), then fences may be erected to keep wildlife out of
industrial areas.
ROCKYMOuNI JNEC0WGICALSERV3CES,INC 24
RIZ Gmasl Pisr iri fc Asta,unrens &port Aa�xrt 2Do7
4.4 LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION
As the area is used as winter range (and critical winter range), reclamation of road cuts,
infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using similar 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 newly planted materials would likely be
browsed first, and plants with little time to set roots wil 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.
Revegetation along roadsides should not include trees and tall shrubs within 10 feet of the road to
improve visual detection of wildlife along roadsides and to minimize road kill. Local native grasses,
forbs and low shrubs may be planted along roadsides to keep wildlife habitat conditions as viable as
possible.
4.5 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, andmost 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 be prohibited and never
•be allowed to run free. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following recommendations
are presented:
o Dogs should not be allowed to run free on the property during the winter months
(November 15 through March 1), unless under leash control.
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 preferted ranges. In the past, COOW has had
numerous reports of dogs brought to construction sites by workers which chase and
harass wildlife.
Stray or loose dogs may be controlled by CDOW or Garfield County, which could induce destruction
of dogs chasing wildlife, as permitted by Colorado law. Under Colorado law, persons who are not in
compliance with this dog policy will be responsible for any and all costs the CDOW or Garfield
County may Incur due to control of loose dogs on the property. If operators knowingly permit illegal
dog activity on the property, those persons will be financially responsible for costs of controlling
dogs. CDOW and County represenkitives may be granted access to the property to errforoe any of
the dog restrictions and other wildlife restrictions set within these recommendations. CDOW
enforcement may include the capture or destruction of any dogs running at large on the property,
regardless of where the dogs may have originated.
Pill
ROCK'? MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.
25
RTS Gravel Pjs Waifs Alrarrmarxt Raport
RacKy MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.
RTZ Gravel kits
�ildlifa A.rsQssrxrttl Report ergs 2007
95 LITERATURE CITED & GENERAL REFERENCES
Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1994. Colorado birds, a reference to their distribution and habitat.
Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp.
Broderick, J. 2007. Personal communication. Glenwood Springs Area Wildlife Biologist, Colorado
Division of Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Burdick, B.D. 1992. A plan to evaluate stocking to augment or restore razorback suckers in the
Upper Colorado River. US Fish and Wildlife Report, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Element Occurrence Records System. Ft. Collins, CO.
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.fws.gov/endangeredlcandidates/2005. CNOR%2011 May05%20FR. pdf
Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, Endangered, and Vulnerable Species of Terrestrial Vertebrates in
the Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -215. Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 38p.
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.
lkorman, R.T,T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review
of Ecological Systems. 29, 207-231.
Holden, P.B. (Ed.). 1999. Flow recommendations for the San Juan River. San Juan River Basin
Recovery Implementation Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M.
Hughes, J. 1999. Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Pp. 1-28 in A. Poole, F. Gill, eds. The
Birds of North America, Vol. 418. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America.
Martinez, A. 2007. Personnel communication June 1, 2007. Western Colorado Aquatic Biologist.
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado,
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Minckley, W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) (Abbot), in the lower
Colorado River Basin, Southwest Naturalist 28(2):165-187.
Minckley, W.L., P.C. Marsh, J.E. Brooks, J.E. Johnson, and B.L. Jensen. 1991. Managed toward
recovery of razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). In W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, Eds.
Battle Against Extinction. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Osmundson, D.B. and Bumham. 1998. Status and Trends of the Endangered Colorado squawfish
in the Upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:959-972.
Osmundson, D.B. and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Flow recommendations for maintenance and
enhancement of rare fish habitat in the 15 -Mile Reach during October -June. Final Report. US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado.
"psmundson, D.B., R.J. Ryel and T.E. Mourning. 1997. Growth and survival of Colorado squawfish in
the upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 687-698.
Roc MoUrrrMN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 27
EXHIBIT I SOILS INFORMATION
See the soils report attached to this exhibit.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 I-1
Hydrologic S.II Group -Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
(RTZ IndusIrial Site)
0
350
700
1,400
748800
Meters
7.100
0
L:S(M Nalural Resources
Conservalion Service
1.500
3.000
6,C00
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Feel
000
2/28/2008
Rego 1 of 5
Hydrologic Scit Group -Rile Area, Colorado. Pacts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
(RTZ industrial Site)
Area of Interest (AOI)
U
soils
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOl)
Sol Map Units
Soil Ratings
Rs. A
eat
AID
B
BID
C
Cr0
0
Not rated or notevaaabte
Political Features
Municipalities
ts Cities
Urban Areas
Water Features
Oceans
�.. Streams and Canals
Transportation
. Rais
Roads
ry Interstate Highways
US Routes
Siete Highways
Loral Roads
Other Roads
Original soil survey map sheets were prepared al publication scale.
Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the
original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper
map measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
VVeb Soil Survey URL.: http:Awebsoidsurvey nres.usda.gov
Coardinate System: UTM Zane 12N
This product is generated from the USDA -MRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 4, Feb 1, 2008
Dale(s) aerial images were photographed: 9/2111993
The orthopholo or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitleed probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result. some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey 2.0
National Cooperative Soil Survey
228/2008
Page 2 of 5
Hydrologic Soil Group --Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts ofGarieid and Mesa
Counties
RTZ Industrial Site
Hydrologic Soil Group
' : Hydrologic Soil Group: Summary by. Map Urrit - Ride Areal Colorado,. Parts of Garfield. and Mesa Countl®s :.:.... .
Mapunit symbol`:'_:;::
•. '' Map unit name .':- ': .•''; Rating '..:. :.
AcreaInAO1 -:' ':::-•`
Reliant ot_AOI`'; '.
3
Arvada loam, 1 to D
percent slopes
225,4
14.3%
4
Arvada foam, 6 to 20 ID
percent slopes
320.0
20.2%
47
Nlhiltchannery loam, 8 to B
25 percent slopes
8.5
0.6%
62
Rock outcrop-
Torriorihents complex,
very steep
D
315.8
20,0%
65
TorrItIuver s, nearly level
0
0.1
0.6%
66
Torrlorihents-
Camborthids-Rack
outcrop complex,
steep
D
840.4
40.5%
•
72
Warn sandy taarn,1 to 3
percent slopes
B
47.7
3.0%
73
Water
13.8
0.9%
Totals for Area of Interes (A01) 1
1.580,7
100.045
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 2/28/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5
Hydrologic SoII Group—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa RTZ Industrial Site
Counties
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long -duration storms.
The soils in the United Slates are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands, These soils have a high rate of water transmission,
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderntelywell drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission,
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission,
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet, These consist chiefly of days that have a high shrink -swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
if a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (ND, B/D, or CIO), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
USDA Natural Resources web Soli Survey 2,0 2/28/2008
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 0 5
Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced
to a single value That represents the map unit as a whole,
A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component Is
either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute
being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute
value for each of a reap unit's components. From this set of component attributes,
the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents the
map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic
map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation must be done because, on
any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.
For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is
recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding component
typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a
critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.
The aggregation method "Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for
the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set to the
sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These _
groups now represent "conditions" rather than components. The attribute value
associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is
returned. If more than one group shares the highest cumulative percent
composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value should be
returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value
should be returned in the case of a percent composition tie.
The result returned by this aggregation method represents the dominant condition
throughout the map unit only when no tie has occurred.
Components whose percent composition is below the cutoff value will not be
considered. if no cutoff value is specified, all components in the database will be
considered, The data for some contrasting soils of minor extent may not be in the
database, and therefore are not considered.
Tie-break Rufe: Lower
The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple
candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent
composition tie.
EXHIBIT I SOILS INFORMATION
See the soils report attached to this exhibit.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 I-1
USDA United States
Department of
Agr culture
\RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Rifle Area, Colorado,
Parts of Garfield and
Mesa Counties
July 20, 2016
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3
Contents
Preface 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made 5
Soil Map 7
Soil Map 8
Legend 9
Map Unit Legend 10
Map Unit Descriptions 10
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 12
3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 12
4—Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes 13
56—Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 14
59—Potts-Ildefonso complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes 15
62—Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep 16
65—Torrifluvents, nearly level 18
66—Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep 19
72—Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 21
73—Water 22
References 23
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
6
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
0 Soil Map Unit Polygons
,.- Soil Map Unit Lines
O Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
10 Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
• Closed Depression
• Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
▪ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
.a Severely Eroded Spot
0
oa
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
0
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
▪ Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
t++ Rails
r o Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
® Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 22, 2015
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 22, 2010—Sep 2,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
gery displayed on these maps. Asa result, some minor shifting
9
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C0683)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
3
Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
220.2
27.7%
4
Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent
slopes
272.3
34.3%
56
Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes
4.3
0.5%
59
Potts-Ildefonso complex, 25 to
45 percent slopes
6.6
0.8%
62
Rock outcrop-Torriorthents
complex, very steep
1.2
0.1%
65
Torrifluvents, nearly level
65.9
8.3%
66
Torriorthents-Camborthids-
Rock outcrop complex, steep
122.2
15.4%
72
Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
57.0
7.2%
73
Water
45.3
5.7%
Totals for Area of Interest
794.8
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnxv
Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Arvada and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Arvada
Setting
Landform: Terraces, fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across -slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam
H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam
H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 2 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/
cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 30.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Salt Flats (R048AY261C0)
Minor Components
Wann
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Terraces
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
4—Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jny6
Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Arvada and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Arvada
Setting
Landform: Terraces, fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across -slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam
H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam
H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 20 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 2 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/
cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 30.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Custom Soil Resource Report
56—Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnys
Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Potts and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Potts
Setting
Landform: Benches, mesas, valley sides
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across -slope shape: Linear, convex
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from
sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam
H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam
H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 12 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298C0)
Custom Soil Resource Report
59—Potts-Ildefonso complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnyw
Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Potts and similar soils: 60 percent
Ildefonso and similar soils: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Potts
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, valley sides
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across -slope shape: Linear, convex
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from
sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam
H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam
H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 40 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298C0)
Description of Ildefonso
Setting
Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from
sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: stony loam
H2 - 8 to 60 inches: very stony loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 35 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
62—Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnz0
Elevation: 5,800 to 8,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F
Frost -free period: 80 to 105 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rock outcrop: 65 percent
Torriorthents and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rock Outcrop
Setting
Landform: Plateaus, hillslopes, escarpments
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face
Down-slope shape: Convex, concave
Across -slope shape: Convex, concave
Parent material: Very stony colluvium derived from calcareous shale
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 50 to 80 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to paralithic bedrock
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Description of Torriorthents
Setting
Landform: Plateaus, hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable
H2 - 4 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam
H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 50 to 80 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Minor Components
Nihil)
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Plateaus, hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face
Custom Soil Resource Report
65—Torrifluvents, nearly level
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnz3
Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F
Frost -free period: 90 to 120 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Torrifluvents and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Torrifluvents
Setting
Landform: Flood plains, rivers, distributaries
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across -slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 36 inches: loam
H2 - 36 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 1 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0
mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 2.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Wann
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Fluvaquents
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Marshes
66—Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnz4
Elevation: 5,000 to 8,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F
Frost -free period: 80 to 105 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Torriorthents, steep, and similar soils: 45 percent
Camborthids, steep, and similar soils: 20 percent
Rock outcrop, steep: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Torriorthents, Steep
Setting
Landform: Mountainsides
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, base slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable
H2 - 4 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam
H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 70 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
19
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Description of Camborthids, Steep
Setting
Landform: Mountainsides
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, base slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable
H2 - 4 to 30 inches: clay loam
H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 65 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 15 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 2 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Description of Rock Outcrop, Steep
Setting
Landform: Mountainsides
Landform position (three-dimensional): Free face
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 70 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to paralithic bedrock
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
72—Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jnzc
Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and
sodium
Map Unit Composition
Wann and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wann
Setting
Landform: Terraces, valley floors
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across -slope shape: Linear, convex
Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 8 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam, coarse sandy loam
H2 - 8 to 60 inches:
H2 - 8 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 26.3 inches)
21
Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D
Ecological site: Salt Meadow (R048AY265C0)
Minor Components
Torrifluvents
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Kim
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Arvada
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
73—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
22
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
23
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2 052290.pdf
24
EXHIBIT J VEGETATION INFORMATION
1. Existing Vegetation Community
The vegetation found on the 5 Mile Pit property is dry rangeland and scrub. Figures J-1 & J-2
shows the general vegetation present on site. The ground coverage is typically less than 50%. There
are two small delineated wetlands that can be seen on Maps C-1, C-2, and F-1. These wetlands are
in low areas that have access to ground water and surface water flows. None of the wetlands will be
disturbed by mining activities.
Figure J-1 Existing Vegetation Aerial
5 Mile Pit March 2016 J-1
5 Mile Pit
Existing Vegetation
Coo*le ea•th
Figure J-2 Existing Vegetation — Looking southwest from Battlement Parkway south of the
site entrance.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 J-2
EXHIBIT K CLIMATE INFORMATION
2. General Information
Climate information for Rifle and Grand Junction area used to best approximate the climate near
the 5 Mile Pit. See the attached NOAA reports and information for these areas.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 K-1
ESR1 : PSD : CO Climatology plot
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 11
ti le:///D:/26419° o20R-17%20Gravel°o2OPit/Permitting/DRMS° o20Pe...
U.S. Department of Commerce 1 National Oceanic 8 Atmospheric Administration 1 NOAA Research
Earth System Research Laboratory
Physical Sciences Division
Climatology for Grand Junction CO
Lat=39.1N Lon=108.3W Elevation=4848 feet
Number of years available from 1961 to 1990: 30
Maximum temperature 1961 to 1990: 105 F Minimum temperature 1961 to 1990 -23 F
Mean Annual Precipitation: 8.7 inches Mean Annual Snowfall 24.1 inches
t2D
tU
s i10
C 100
L t70'* vMrT Al."' i. irp
V� iA
"
.AIIVIY#"a...
u 40
30 � VI
✓ 20
p, 16
u 0
10Stfi F B NM APR Y .UN JUL AUC SEP OCT NOV
Daily mean maximum temperature
and extremes: Grond Junction CO
Day
Daily meon minimum temperature
and extremes: Grand Junction CO
.0 90
t BD
C 70
tU 60 t 30 tilt ''�r,.,
O 40
Ill D1,_
Ii Vu n▪ ('
d -20
3
35
3
t3
t.5
AN Aar JUN JUl AUG SEP BCT NtN DEC
Doy
Daily mean precipitation and
snowfall: Grund Junction CO
PdP
Day
N06A-CIRES/Clitoote DiO9noebte Center
Daily % chance precipitation wind speed and % sunshine
Monthly anomalies 1961-1990
Monthly means 1961-1990
U.S. Department of Commerce 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earth System Research Laboratory 1 Physical Sciences Division
Current page http /Avww cdc noaa gov t i-buvtJSchmata.t y pl
PnvaCy Policy 1 Accessibility 1 Disclaimer
Contact the Webmaster
(webmaster psd@noaa gov)
6/20/2007 4:58 PM
ESRI.: PSI) : CC) Daily percent chance precip, ind, sun
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
file./ I):/26419%20817."e20GraveIND20Pit/Periiittin DRMS°o20Pe.._
U.S. Department of Commerce 1 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 1 NOAA Research
I°" Earth System Research Laboratory
Physical Sciences Division
Grand Junction CO chance precip, wind speed and sunshine
Lat=39.1 N Lon=108.3W Elevation=4848 feet
Number of years available from 1961 to 1990: 30
Annual average chance of precipitation: 19.8%%
Annual average wind speed: 8.1 mph
Annual average percent of available sun: 70.4%
Doily Chance of Precipitation
Grand Junction CO
100
90
90
7D
u 50
V e.0
Q' 30
20
I0
IIAN
01\k,,i4ittiOlikko;
B NAA MR YAY N J1. AUG SEP
OCT NOV
Month
Average wind speed (over 7 years)
13
1Z
0 111 11
10
+I
ork I� 1t rr
{it- 1
,I01 ;
N
1111
191
4
.19N FEB NAR APR YAY JUN JIA A110 SEP [kr NOV DEC
Month
Percent of possible sun (over 7 years)
00
90
M
ij
0'
0
D
0
JAN F Ee NAA APR MAT . N JIA. AUG SEP OCI NPI DEC
Month
NOM-CORES/C6mate Dioanu0Nce Center
U S Department of Commerce 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earth System Research Laboialory 1 Physical Sciences Division
Curren) page htfp /Avww rx7c.noaa gov/tgrbm/USchmate/c1ty pl
Pnvacy Policy 1 Accessibility I Drsdatmer
Contact the Webmaster
(webmaster psd@noea gov)
6/20/2007 4:58 PM
ow ow no I ow um u
Notes
a. The monthly means are simple arithmetic averages computed by summing the monthly values for the period 1971-2000 and dividing by thirty. Prior to averaging, the data
are adjusted if necessary to compensate for data quality issues, station moves or changes in station reporting practices. Missing months are replaced by estimates based on
neighboring stations.
b. The median is defined as the middle value in an ordered set of values. The median is being provided for the snow and precipitation elements because the mean can be a
misleading value for precipitation normals.
c. Only observed validated values were used to select the extreme daily values.
d. Extreme monthly temperature/precipitation means were selected from the monthly normals data.
Monthly snow extremes were calculated from daily values quality controlled to be consistent with the Snow Climatology.
e. Degree Days were derived using the same techniques as the 1971-2000 normals.
Compete documentation for the 1971-2000 Normals is available on the internet from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
f. Mean "number of days statistics" for temperature and precipitation were calculated from a serially complete daily data set .
Documentation of the serially complete data set is available from the link below:
g. Snowfall and snow depth statistics were derived from the Snow Climatology.
Documentation for the Snow Climatology project is available from the link under references.
Data Sources for Tables
Several different data sources were used to create the CIim20 climate summaries. In some cases the daily extremes appear inconsistent with the monthly extremes and or the mean
number of days statistics. For example, a high daily extreme value may not be reflected in the highest monthly value or the mean number of days threshold that is less than and
equal to the extreme value. Some of these difference are caused by different periods of record. Daily extremes are derived from the station's entire period of record while the
serial data and normals data were are for the 1971-2000 period. Therefore extremes observed before 1971 would not be included in the 1971-2000 normals or the 1971-2000
serial daily data set. Inconsistencies can also occur when monthly values are adjusted to reflect the current observing conditions or were replaced during the 1971-2000 Monthly
Normals processing and are not reconciled with the Summary of the Day data.
a. Temperature/ Precipitation Tables
1. 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
2. Cooperative Summary of the Day
3. National Weather Service station records
4. 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
c. Snow Tables
1. Snow Climatology
2. Cooperative Summary of the Day
d. Freeze Data Table
1971-2000 serially complete daily data
b. Degree Day Table
1. Monthly and Annual Heating and Cooling Degree Days Normals to Selected Bases derived from 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
2. Daily Normal Growing Degree Units to Selected Base Temperatures derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
References
U.S. Climate Normals 1971-2000, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/normals.htmj
U.S. Climate Normals 1971 -2000 -Products Clim20 www.ncdc.noaa.Qov/oalclimate/normals/usnormalsprods.html
Snow Climatology Project Description www.ncdc.noaa.aov/oa/climate/monitoring)snowclim/mainoage.html
Eischeid, J. K., P. Pasteris, H. F. Diaz, M. Plantico, and N. Lott, 2000: Creating a serially complete, national daily time series of temperature and precipitation for the Western
United States. J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 1580-1591,
wwwl.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/special/ serialcompletejam_0900.pdf
_ I!y'ctt�Com_ _
Natio' ;eanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
Station: RIFLE, CO
Climate Division: CO 2
OMI IMCliMilogRhy — m O
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
NWS Call Sign:
_a1 C1M111"•\
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 057031
Elevation: 5,450 Feet Lat: 39°32N Lon: 107°48W
Base
0 0 I
0 I
0 I 28 I 175 346 I 299 I 86
Degree Days to Selected Base Temperatures (°F)
0
0
0 I
0
Cooling
Degree Days (1)
935
Base
Base
I
Growing Degree Units for Corn (Monthly)
Heating Degree Days (1)
Above
Jan
I
Feb
Mar
I
Apr
I Below
Jan
I
Feb
Mar
I
Apr
I
May
I
Jun
I
Jul
,
Aug
I
Sep
Oct
I
Nov
265
Dec
448
Ann
737
65
1287
I
959
783
I
544
I
292
I
81
I
10
I
19
I
162
486
1
874
I
1223
I
6720
303
I 60
1132
I
819
628
I
397
I
165
I
26
I
1
I
2
I
73
335
I
I 724
I
1068
I
5370
I
I 57
1039
13
735
535
I
314
I
105
I
10
I
0
I
0
I
39
251
174
I 634
I
975
I
4637
I
55
977
I
679
474
I
261
I
74
1
5
I
0
I
0
I
24
199
I
574
I
913
I
4180
I
50
822
I
543
329
I
151
I
24
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
4
95
7
I 426
1
758
I
3152
I 32
335
150
24
I
2
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
0
I 52
259
822
Base
0 0 I
0 I
0 I 28 I 175 346 I 299 I 86
1
0
0
0 I
0
Cooling
Degree Days (1)
935
935
Base
I
Growing Degree Units for Corn (Monthly)
Above
Jan
I
Feb
Mar
I
Apr
I
May
I
Jun
Jul
I
Aug
I
Sep
Oct
I
Nov
I
Dec
Ann
32
71
I
115
265
I
448
I
737
I
988
1209
I
1165
I
863
538
I
167
59
6625
55
0
I
0
1
I
18
I
98
I
303
496
I
452
I
196
24
I
0
0
1588
57
0
I
0
0
10
I
68
I
248
434
I
390
(
152
13
0
0
1315
60
0
I
0
0
I
4
I
34
I
174
341
I
299
I
96
4
0
0
I 952
65
0
I
0
0
I
0
I
7
I
79
195
I
161
I
34
0
I
0
0
476
70
0
I
0
0
I
0
I
0
I
24
82
I
61
I
7
0
1
0
I
0
174
Growing Degree Units (2)
Base I
1 40 1 0
45 I 0
50 I 0
Growing Degree Units (Monthly)
Growing Degree Units (Accumulated Monthly)
Jan
Feb I Mar
12 1 90
Apr May I Jun
249 499 1 751
Jul I Aug I Sep
966 1 918 1 628
2 I 28
0 3
134 350 I 601
53 I 211 I 453
811 I 763 I 478
656 I 608 I 333
Oct
309
180
79
Nov
43
10
Dec Jan I Feb Mar
Apr I May I Jun
0
0
0
0 0
0 I 12 102 351 850 01
0 164 514 1115
3 I 56 I 267 I 720
Jul
2567
1926
1376
55
14 I 101 I 308
501 I 453 I 198
18
14 I 115
423
924
Aug
3485
2689
1984
1377
Sep Oct
4113 4422
3167
2317
1575
3347
2396
1593
Nov
4465
3357
2396
1593
Dec
4465
3357
2396
1593
60
0 0 I
0 I
0 I 28 I 175 346 I 299 I 86
1
0
0
0 I
0
0 I 0 I 28 I 203 1 549 848 934
935
935
935
Base
I
Growing Degree Units for Corn (Monthly)
Growing Degree Units for Corn (Accumulated Monthly)
150/86 1 0 I 28 1 117 I 222 I 365 I 496 I 604 I 580 I 438 I 286
70
5
0
28
145
367
732
1228
1832
2412
(1) Derived from the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
Note: For corn, temperatures below 50 are set to 50, and temperatures above 86 are set to 86
084-E
2850 13136 3206
3211
Complete documentation available from:
www.nc dc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
Mt. De rce
National Ocean“..4 Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
INN
Station: RIFLE, CO
Climate Division: CO 2 NWS Call Sign:
ernatc ph-
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
Elevation: 5,450 Feet
MO 111.
'.��Tmatic Data) Center
Feder._ _.,uilding
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 057031
Lat: 39°32N Lon: 107°48W
Freeze Data
Spring Freeze Dates (Month/Day)
Temp (F)
Probability of later date in spring (thru Jul 31) than indicated(*)
36
32
28
.10
6/24
6/13
5/25
.20
6/19
6/07
5/20
.30
6/15
6/02
5/15
.40
6/12
5/29
5/12
.50
6/09
5/25
5/08
.60
.70 .80
6/05
5/22
5/05
6/02 5/29
5/18 5/13
5/01 4/27
24
5/07 5/01 4/27 4/23
4/20 4/16
4/13 4/08
20
4/25 1 4/19 1 4/15 4/11 1 4/08 1 4/04
3/31 3/27
16
4/11 4/04 3/30 3/25
3/21 3/17
3/12 3/07
.90
5/24
5/07
4/21
4/02
3/21
2/28
Fall Freeze Dates (Month/Day)
Temp (F)
Probability of earlier date in fall (beginning Aug 1) than indicated(*)
.10 .20 1 .30 1 .40 1 .50 1 .60 .70
.80
.90
36 I
8/31
I 9/05
9/09
I 9/12
9/15
9/18
9/21
I
9/25
9/30
32 I
9/12
9/16
9/19
I 9/22
9/24
9/26
9/29
I
10/02
10/06
28
9/20
9/25
9/28
I 10/01
10/03
10/06
10/09
I
10/12
10/17
24 `
9/28
I 10/04
10/09
I 10/12
10/16
10/20
10/23
10/28
11/03
20 I
10/16
I 10/20
10/24
I 10/27
10/29
11/01
11/04
I
11/07
11/12
16
I 10/25
I 10/30
11/02
I 11/05
11/08
11/11
11/14
I
11/18
11/22
Freeze Free Period
Temp (F)
Probability of longer than indicated freeze free period (Days)
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
I
.80
.90
36
118
111
106
102
98
94
89
I
84
77
32
I 143
136
130
125
121
117
112
I
106
99
28
I 172
163
157
152
147
143
137
I
131
123
24
I 204
195
189
184
178
173
168
162
153
20
1 227
219
213
208
204
199
195
I
189
181
16
I 257
248
242
236
231
226
221
214
205
* Probability of observing a temperature as cold, or colder, later in the spring or earlier in the fall than the indicated date.
0/00 Indicates that the probability of occurrence of threshold temperature is less than the indicated probability.
Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data Complete documentation available from:
www.ricdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
084-D
U.S. Depar: L
of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Services
Station: RIFLE, CO
Climate Division: CO 2
NWS Call Sign:
I N = MI
Climatog=aphy
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
N N
Elevation: 5,450 Feet
IMP
Lat: 39°32N
National Climatic L .enter
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 057031
Lon: 107°48W
Snow (inches)
Snow Totals
Mean Number of Days (1)
Means/Medians (1)
Extremes (2)
Snow Fall
>= Thresholds
Snow Depth
>= Thresholds
Month
Snow
Fall
Mean
Snow
Fall
Median
Snow
Depth
P
Mean
Snow
Depth
P
Median
Highest
Daily
Snow
Fall
Year
Day
Highest
Monthly
Snow
Fall
Year
Highest
Daily
Snow
Depth
Year
Day
Highest
Monthly
Mean
Snow
Depth
Year
0.1
1.0
3.0
5.0
10.0
1
3
5
10
Jan
12.9
11.0
5
3
10.0
1974
5
36.7
1988
20
1975
8
15
1979
6.4
4.4
1.7
.8
@
19.4
15.3
12.5
5.7
Feb
7.8
7.0
3
1
16.7
1989
4
35.6
1989
25
1979
2
16
1979
4.4
3.0
1.0
.4
@
10.8
7.9
6.7
2.2
Mar
3.9
2.0
#
#
8.0
1985
27
25.0
1985
10
1985
29
2
1979
2.4
1.4
.4
.2
.0
1.5
.6
.4
@
Apr
.6
.0
#
0
3.0
1983
3
4.7
1975
1
1999
3
4+
2000
.7
.2
@
.0
.0
.2
.0
.0
.0
May
#
.0
#
0
#
1979
7
4+
1979
#
1999
10
#
1999
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Jun
#
.0
0
0
#
1976
14
#
1976
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Jul
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Aug
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Sep
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Oct
1.1
.0
#
0
4.5
1972
29
5.5
1972
5
1972
31
1
1972
.5
.4
.2
.0
.0
.4
.2
.1
.0
Nov
5.0
3.0
#
#
12.0
1985
9
28.0
1985
6
1975
27
1
1994
2.7
1.9
.8
.2
@
2.2
.9
.2
.0
Dec
12.5 10.7
2
2
11.5
1972
4
38.0
1972
16
1983
28
10+
1972
6.2
4.9
1.8
.7
.1
11.4
7.2
5.0
1.4
Ann
43.8 33.7
N/A
N/A
16.71989
Feb
4
38.0
Dec
1972
25
Feb
1979
2
16
Feb
1979
23.3
16.2
5.9
2.3
.1
45.9
32.1
24.9
9.3
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s) #Denotes trace amounts
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
-9/-9.9 represents missing values
Annual statistics for Mean/Median snow depths are not appropriate
084-C
(1) Derived from Snow Climatology and 1971-2000 daily data
(2) Derived from 1971-2000 daily data
Complete documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
Imo
U.S. Depar.,-.it of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
IMP
Station: RIFLE, CO
Climate Division: CO 2 NWS Call Sign:
Climatograpi«y
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
NM I
IMP MN M --, -
Elevation: 5,450 Feet Lat: 39°32N
National Climatic Data .er
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 057031
Lon: 107°48W
Precipitation (inches)
Means/
Medians([)
Extremes
Daily Precipitation
Monthly/Annual Precipitation vs Probability Levels
These values were determined from the incomple e gamma distribution
Month
Mean ed- Highest Year Day Highest year Lowest
M
ion I Delly(2) I I Moothly0) Moothly0)
>= >=
Year 0.01 0.10
>_ >=
0.50 1.00 .05 .10 .20
.30 .40 .50 .60
.70 1 .80
.90
.95
Jan
.96 I .80 1.30 1978 27
2.50 I 1980 .13
1994 8.3 3.7
.2 @ .17 .25 .39
.52 I .66 I .80 .97
1.17 1.44 1.87 I 2.29
Feb .90 I .85 1.05 1996 21
2.45 I 1996 .05
1972 7.2 3.1
.3 @ .13 .21 .34
.47 1 59 1 .74 I .90
1.10
1.37
1.81
2.23
Mar 1 1.06 .95 1 .92 1 1912 1 20
3.04 I 1985 .16
1972 8.8 3.9
.2 .0 .20 .29 .44
.59 I .73 I .89 1.07
1.29 1.58 2.04 2.48
Apr 1.11 .89 1.10 , 1934 3
3.29 11999 .08
1982 8.1 4.0
.4 @ .22 .32 .48
.63 .78 I .95 1.13
1.36
1.65
2.13 2.58
May 1.18 1.07 1.41 1916 20
3.22 1979 .00
1974 7.7 3.8
.4 .1 .14 .28 .48
.65 .82 I 1.00 1.21
1.45
1.77
2.29 2.78
Jun i .87 .66 1 1.98 1 1984 1 7
3.71 1984 .00
1971
2.7
.3 .1 .07 .16 .30
.43 .56 I .71 .87
1.07
1.35
1.79
2.21
Jul
1.04 .85 1 1.40 1 1989 1 29
2.63 1989 .02
1994 7.0 3.6
.4 @ .13 .21 .36
.50 .66 I .83 1.02
1.27
1.60
2.15
2.68
Aug
1.03 .90 1 2.15 1 1930 9
2.60 1984 .10
1975 7.3 3.2
.3 .1
.24 .34 .49
Sep
1.21 1.20 1 1.76 1 1988 12
3.30 1986 .07
1979 7.4 4.2
.4 .1 .17 .27 .44
.62 .76 I .90 1.06
.61 .79 I .98 1.20
1.25
1.50
1.90
2.28
1.48
1.85
2.46
3.05
Oct
1.31 1.10 1 1.36 I 1914 4
3.44 1972 .14
1988 7.2 4.4
.5 .1 .24 .35 .54
.72 .90 I 1.10 1.32
1.59
1.95
2.53
3.08
Nov
Dec
1.02 .89 1.21
1.06 .89 1.42
1919
26
3.59 1985 .00
1976 7.3 3.6
.1 @ .18 .32 .49
1966
6
3.25 1978 .02
1976
3.7
.3 .0 .12 .19 .34
.63 .76 I .90 1.06
.49 .65 I .82 1.03
1.25
1.49
1.87
2.22
1.29
1.64
2.22
2.79
Ann
12.75 12.17 2.15
Aug
1930
9
Jun
3.71 1984
.00+
Nov
89.7 43.9
1976
3.8 .5 8.08 8.94 10.07
10.94 11.721 12.49 13.28
14.17 15.27
16.87
18.27
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s)
# Denotes amounts of a trace
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
** Statistics not computed because less than six years out of thirty had measurable precipitation
084-B
(1) From the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from station's available digital record: 1910-2001
(3) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
Complete •documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
Precipitation Probabilities (1)
Precipitation Totals
Mean Number
Probability that the monthly/annual precipitation will be equal to or less than the
of Days (3)
indicated amount
Means/
Medians([)
Extremes
Daily Precipitation
Monthly/Annual Precipitation vs Probability Levels
These values were determined from the incomple e gamma distribution
Month
Mean ed- Highest Year Day Highest year Lowest
M
ion I Delly(2) I I Moothly0) Moothly0)
>= >=
Year 0.01 0.10
>_ >=
0.50 1.00 .05 .10 .20
.30 .40 .50 .60
.70 1 .80
.90
.95
Jan
.96 I .80 1.30 1978 27
2.50 I 1980 .13
1994 8.3 3.7
.2 @ .17 .25 .39
.52 I .66 I .80 .97
1.17 1.44 1.87 I 2.29
Feb .90 I .85 1.05 1996 21
2.45 I 1996 .05
1972 7.2 3.1
.3 @ .13 .21 .34
.47 1 59 1 .74 I .90
1.10
1.37
1.81
2.23
Mar 1 1.06 .95 1 .92 1 1912 1 20
3.04 I 1985 .16
1972 8.8 3.9
.2 .0 .20 .29 .44
.59 I .73 I .89 1.07
1.29 1.58 2.04 2.48
Apr 1.11 .89 1.10 , 1934 3
3.29 11999 .08
1982 8.1 4.0
.4 @ .22 .32 .48
.63 .78 I .95 1.13
1.36
1.65
2.13 2.58
May 1.18 1.07 1.41 1916 20
3.22 1979 .00
1974 7.7 3.8
.4 .1 .14 .28 .48
.65 .82 I 1.00 1.21
1.45
1.77
2.29 2.78
Jun i .87 .66 1 1.98 1 1984 1 7
3.71 1984 .00
1971
2.7
.3 .1 .07 .16 .30
.43 .56 I .71 .87
1.07
1.35
1.79
2.21
Jul
1.04 .85 1 1.40 1 1989 1 29
2.63 1989 .02
1994 7.0 3.6
.4 @ .13 .21 .36
.50 .66 I .83 1.02
1.27
1.60
2.15
2.68
Aug
1.03 .90 1 2.15 1 1930 9
2.60 1984 .10
1975 7.3 3.2
.3 .1
.24 .34 .49
Sep
1.21 1.20 1 1.76 1 1988 12
3.30 1986 .07
1979 7.4 4.2
.4 .1 .17 .27 .44
.62 .76 I .90 1.06
.61 .79 I .98 1.20
1.25
1.50
1.90
2.28
1.48
1.85
2.46
3.05
Oct
1.31 1.10 1 1.36 I 1914 4
3.44 1972 .14
1988 7.2 4.4
.5 .1 .24 .35 .54
.72 .90 I 1.10 1.32
1.59
1.95
2.53
3.08
Nov
Dec
1.02 .89 1.21
1.06 .89 1.42
1919
26
3.59 1985 .00
1976 7.3 3.6
.1 @ .18 .32 .49
1966
6
3.25 1978 .02
1976
3.7
.3 .0 .12 .19 .34
.63 .76 I .90 1.06
.49 .65 I .82 1.03
1.25
1.49
1.87
2.22
1.29
1.64
2.22
2.79
Ann
12.75 12.17 2.15
Aug
1930
9
Jun
3.71 1984
.00+
Nov
89.7 43.9
1976
3.8 .5 8.08 8.94 10.07
10.94 11.721 12.49 13.28
14.17 15.27
16.87
18.27
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s)
# Denotes amounts of a trace
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
** Statistics not computed because less than six years out of thirty had measurable precipitation
084-B
(1) From the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from station's available digital record: 1910-2001
(3) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
Complete •documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
IMO■r-_ e IMO IMP
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
Station: RIFLE, CO
Climate Division: CO 2
N MI = = =
Ill!
NWS Call Sign:
Climatography
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
= I ▪ = MI MSI IIIIII
National Climatic Data Center
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 057031
Elevation: 5,450 Feet Lat: 39°32N Lon: 107°48W
Temperature (°F)
Mean (1)
Extremes
Degree Days (1)
Base Temp 65
Mean Number of Days (3)
Month
Daily
Max
Daily
Min
Mean
Highest
Daily(2)
Year
Day
Highest
Mouth())
Mean
Year
Lowest
Daily(2)
Year
Day
Lowest
Month())
Mean
Year
Heating
Cooling
Max
>_
100
Max
>-
90
Max
>-
50
Max
<-
32
Min
<-
32
Min
<_
0
Jan
37.3
9.7
23.5
62
1986
29
31.5
1998
-38
1963
12
13.4
1973
1287
0
.0
.0
2.5
8.0
30.9
6.0
Feb
45.2
16.3
30.8
69+
1986
26
39.9
1995
-34
1933
10
20.3
1974
959
0
.0
.0
8.8
1.9
27.7
1.8
Mar
55.1
24.4
39.8
79
1986
28
45.5
1999
-16
1948
11
33.6
1976
783
0
.0
.0
21.8
.1
26.8
.0
Apr
63.6
30.1
46.9
92
1936
19
52.5
1992
7
1945
4
41.3
1975
544
0
.0
@
27.0
@
17.7
.0
May
72.7
38.8
55.8
96
2000
30
61.1
2000
17
1972
1
51.2
1975
292
7
.0
.2
30.7
.0
4.5
.0
Jun
84.2
45.7
65.0
102+
1990
30
69.3
1988
22
1937
6
60.4
1975
81
79
.1
8.5
30.0
.0
.4
.0
Jul
89.6
52.4
71.0
104+
1931
24
75.4
1998
33
1968
1
67.5
1992
10
195
.7
16.8
31.0
.0
.0
.0
Aug
87.9
51.3
69.6
101+
2000
10
74.0
2000
31
1960
17
66.2
1975
19
161
.1
12.6
31.0
.0
.0
.0
Sep
79.5
42.0
60.8
99+
1990
14
66.7
1998
21
1937
26
55.8
1971
162
34
.0
2.6
30.0
.0
3.2
.0
Oct
67.7
31.0
49.4
88+
1992
1
54.1
1988
7
1991
31
44.6
1984
486
0
.0
.0
28.7
.I
18.7
.0
Nov
50.5
21.2
35.9
79
1934
4
41.8
1999
-16
1955
16
29.7
2000
874
0
.0
.0
15.3
1.3
28.0
.2
Dec
39.4
11.7
25.6
65+
1980
3
35.0
1980
-27
1962
26
15.0
1978
1223
0
.0
.0
3.7
6.6
30.6
3.9
Ann
64.4
31.2
47.8
104+
Jul
1931
24
75.4
Jul
1998
-38
Jan
1963
12
13.4
Jan
1973
6120
476
.9
40.7
260.5
18.0
188.5
11.9
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s)
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
Complete documentation available from: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
Issue Date: February 2004 084-A
(1) From the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from station's available digital record: 1910-2001
(3) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
Notes
a. The monthly means are simple arithmetic averages computed by summing the monthly values for the period 1971-2000 and dividing by thirty. Prior to averaging, the data
are adjusted if necessary to compensate for data quality issues, station moves or changes in station reporting practices. Missing months are replaced by estimates based on
neighboring stations.
b. The median is defined as the middle value in an ordered set of values. The median is being provided for the snow and precipitation elements because the mean can be a
misleading value for precipitation normals.
c. Only observed validated values were used to select the extreme daily values.
d. Extreme monthly temperature/precipitation means were selected from the monthly normals data.
Monthly snow extremes were calculated from daily values quality controlled to be consistent with the Snow Climatology.
e. Degree Days were derived using the same techniques as the 1971-2000 normals.
Compete documentation for the 1971-2000 Normals is available on the interne from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
f. Mean "number of days statistics" for temperature and precipitation were calculated from a serially complete daily data set .
Documentation of the serially complete data set is available from the link below:
g. Snowfall and snow depth statistics were derived from the Snow Climatology.
Documentation for the Snow Climatology project is available from the link under references.
Data Sources for Tables
Several different data sources were used to create the Clim20 climate summaries. In some cases the daily extremes appear inconsistent with the monthly extremes and or the mean
number of days statistics. For example, a high daily extreme value may not be reflected in the highest monthly value or the mean number of days threshold that is less than and
equal to the extreme value. Some of these difference are caused by different periods of record. Daily extremes are derived from the station's entire period of record while the
serial data and normals data were are for the 1971-2000 period. Therefore extremes observed before 1971 would not be included in the 1971-2000 normals or the 1971-2000
serial daily data set. Inconsistencies can also occur when monthly values are adjusted to reflect the current observing conditions or were replaced during the 1971-2000 Monthly
Normals processing and are not reconciled with the Summary of the Day data.
a. Temperature/ Precipitation Tables
1. 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
2. Cooperative Summary of the Day
3. National Weather Service station records
4. 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
c. Snow Tables
1. Snow Climatology
2. Cooperative Summary of the Day
d. Freeze Data Table
1971-2000 serially complete daily data
b. Degree Day Table
1. Monthly and Annual Heating and Cooling Degree Days Normals to Selected Bases derived from 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
2. Daily Normal Growing Degree Units to Selected Base Temperatures derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
References
U.S. Climate Normals 1971-2000 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/normals.html
U.S. Climate Normals 1971 -2000 -Products Clim20, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormalsprods.html
Snow Climatology Project Description www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/monitoring/snowclim/mainpage.html
Eischeid, J. K., P. Pasteris, H. F. Diaz, M. Plantico, and N. Lott, 2000: Creating a serially complete, national daily time series of temperature and precipitation for the Western
United States. J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 1580-1591,
wwwl.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/special/ serialcompletejam_0900.pdf
Com_ NIB=C1i o r h Mi., AIM,MI MB
g Y
Natio;. eanic & Atmospheric Administration �::' Federal Building �
National Environmental Satellite, Data, of the Unite States 151 Patton Avenue
and Information Service No. 20 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
1 \ www.ncdc.noaa.gov
Station: GRAND JUNCTION WALKER AP, CO
Climate Division: CO 2
NWS Call Sign: GJT
1971-2000
COOP ID: 053488
Elevation: 4,858 Feet Lat: 39°08N Lon: 108°32W
Base
Base
Growing Degree Units (Monthly)
Degree Days to Selected Base Temperatures (°F)
Growing Degree Units (Accumulated Monthly)
Jan
Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep
Cooling Degree Days (1)
Nov I Dec
Base
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Heating Degree Days (1)
40
Above
Jan
Feb
I
Mar
Below
Jan
Feb
I
Mar
I
Apr
I
May
I
Jun
I
Jul
I
Aug
I
Sep
Oct
I
Nov
46
Dec
I
Ann
65
1194
860
I
656
I
409
I
178
I
33
I
12
I
1
I
73
367
I
792
I
1125
I
5700
60
1051
727
I
517
I
293
I
91
I
8
I
0
I
0
I
28
251
I
657
I
986
I
4609
57
965
644
I
427
I
221
I
54
I
3
I
0
I
0
I
12
180
I
567
I
893
I
3966
55
907
595
I
370
I
180
I
36
I
1
I
0
I
0
I
6
139
I
508
I
831
I
3573
50
762
464
I
236
I
96
I
9
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
1
61
I
361
I
678
I
2668
32
328
124
I
10
I
0
I
0
204
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
0
I
30
I
215
I
707
Base
Base
Growing Degree Units (Monthly)
Growing Degree Units (Accumulated Monthly)
Jan
Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep
Cooling Degree Days (1)
Nov I Dec
Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I- Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
40
Above
Jan
Feb
I
Mar
I
Apr
I
May
I
Jun
I
Jul
I
Aug
I
Sep
Oct
I
Nov
I
Dec
I
Ann
32
46
141
I
385
I
601
I
921
I
1217
I
1438
I
1374
I
1050
687
I
241
I
52
I
8153
55
0
0
I
6
I
61
I
237
I
528
I
725
I
661
I
367
85
I
1
I
0
I
2671
57
0
0
I
3
I
41
I
190
I
469
I
663
I
599
I
312
58
I
0
I
0
I
2335
60
0
0
I
1
I
20
I
126
I
383
I
570
I
506
I
232
28
I
0
I
0
I
1866
65
0
0
I
0
I
2
I
44
I
232
I
394
I
318
I
100
1
I
0
I
0
1091
70
0
0
I
0
I
0
I
10
I
130
I
262
I
204
I
42
0
I
0
I
0
I
648
Growing Degree Units (2)
Base
Growing Degree Units (Monthly)
Growing Degree Units (Accumulated Monthly)
Jan
Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep
Oct
Nov I Dec
Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I- Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
40
1
39 I 179 I 377 T 684 I 985 11200 11135 I 820
451
82 I
3
1 I
40 I 219 I 596 1280 12265 13465
4600
5420
5871
5953
5956
45
0
9 I 80 I 248 I 533 I 835 I 1045 I 980 I 670
309
31 I
0
0 I
9 I 89 I 337 I 870 I 1705 12750
3730
4400
4709
4740
4740
50
0
0 I 31 I 142 I 382 I 685 I 890 I 825 I 520
185
7 I
0
0 I
0 I 31 I 173 I 555 11240 12130
2955
3475
3660
3667
3667
55
0
0 I 6 I 66 I 244 I 535 I 735 I 670 I 377
92
0 I
0
0 I
0 I 6 I 72 I 316 I 851 11586
2256
2633
2725
2725
2725
60
0
0 I 0 I 23 I 131 I 391 I 580 I 515 I 240
30
0 I
0
0 I
0 I 0 I 23 I 154 I 545 11125
1640
1880
1910
1910
1910
Base
Growing Degree Units for Corn (Monthly)
Growing Degree Units for Corn (Accumulated Monthly)
50/86
0 I 33 I 126 I 244 I 427 I 628 I 770 I 740 I 523 I 286 I 65 I
3
0 I
33 I 159 I 403 I 830 11458 12228
12968 3491 3777 13842 3845
(1) Derived from the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
Note: For corn, temperatures below 50 are set to 50, and temperatures above 86 are set to 86
043-E
Complete documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
MR.Dert1R1*�! omm�rce _
National Ocean..-. Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
Station: GRAND JUNCTION WALKER AP, CO
Climate Division: CO 2 NWS Call Sign: GJT
C limat - ph-
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
MD M M.
Natio' limatic Data Center
Feder�_�uilding
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
Elevation: 4,858 Feet
COOP ID: 053488
Lat: 39°08N Lon: 108 °32W
Freeze Data
Spring Freeze Dates (Month/Day)
Temp (F)
Probability of later date in spring (thru Jul 31) than indicated(*)
.10 ' .20 .30 .40 .50 .60
.70
.80
.90
36 5/30 5/24 1 5/19 1 5/16 1 5/12 1 5/09
5/05
5/01
4/25
32 5/09 5/04 5/01 4/27 4/25 4/22
4/19 4/15
4/10
28
4/27 4/21 4/17 4/14 4/11 4/08
4/05
4/01
3/26
24 4/18 4/10 4/04 3/30 3/25 3/20
3/15
3/09
3/01
20
4/12
4/01
3/25
3/18
3/12
3/05
2/27
2/19
2/08
16 3/28 3/17 3/08 1 3/01 1 2/22 1 2/16
2/08
1/31
1/19
Fall Freeze Dates (Month/Day)
Temp (F)
Probability of earlier date in fall (beginning Aug 1) than indicated(*)
.10
I
.20 .30 I .40 I .50 I .60 .70 I
.80
.90
36
9/24
9/29
10/03
10/07
10/10
10/14
10/17
10/21
10/27
32
9/29
10/05
10/09
10/13
10/16
10/20
10/24
10/28
11/03
28
10/19
10/23
10/27
10/29
11/01
11/03
11/06
11/09
11/14
24 10/24
10/29
11/01
11/04
11/07
11/09
11/12
11/16
11/20
20 10/30
11/05
11/10
11/14
11/18
11/21
11/25
11/30
12/07
16 11/10
11/18
11/24
11/28 12/03
12/07
12/12
12/18
12/26
Freeze Free Period
Temp (F)
Probability of longer than indicated freeze free period (Days)
.10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60
.70
.80
.90
36 173 165 160 155 150 146
141
136
128
32 199 191 184 179 174 169
164
158
149
28 227 219 213 208 203 198
24 256 246 238 232 226 220
20 290 276 267 258 250 242
16 323 310 299 291 283 275
194
214
234
266
188
206
224
256
180
196
210
242
* Probability of observing a temperature as co d, or colder, later in the spring or earlier in the fall than the indicated date.
0/00 Indicates that the probability of occurrence of threshold temperature is less than the indicated probability.
Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data Complete documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
043-D
-�- - - M.INE
U.S. Depai . ; of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Services
Station: GRAND JUNCTION WALKER AP, CO
Climate Division: CO 2 NWS Call Sign: GJT
IMMI IMO -i1.
Climatog aphy
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
Elevation: 4,858 Feet
Lat: 39°08N
National Climatic L enter
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 053488
Lon: 108°32W
Snow (inches)
Snow Totals
Mean Number of Days (1)
Means/Medians (1)
Extremes (2)
Snow Fall
>= Thresholds
Snow Depth
>= Thresholds
Month
Snow
Fall
Mean
Snow
Fall
Median
Snow
Depth
P
Mean
Snow
Depth
P
Median
Highest
Daily
Snow
Fall
Year
Day
Highest
Monthly
Snow
Fall
Year
Highest
Daily
Snow
Depth
Year
Day
Highest
Monthly
Mean
Snow
Depth
Year
0.1
1.0
3.0
5.0
10.0
1
3
5
10
Jan
6.0
4.0
2
0
6.8
1978
23
18.7
1979
11+
1979
13
8+
1984
5.6
2.2
.5
.1
.0
13.3
7.7
5.4
.3
Feb
3.2
2.1
1
0
8.7
1989
4
16.0
1989
11+
1989
5
7+
1979
3.3
1.0
.2
@
.0
7.3
4.9
3.8
.2
Mar
2.8
1.7
#
0
4.9
2000
20
9.4
1987
5
1979
1
1
1979
2.7
.9
.3
.0
.0
1.3
.2
@
.0
Apr
1.5
.2
#
0
5.3
1975
17
14.3
1975
7
1975
18
#
1997
1.2
.5
.1
@
.0
.3
.1
@
.0
May
.2
.0
#
0
5.0
1979
8
5.0
1979
1
1979
8
#
2000
.1
.1
@
@
.0
@
.0
.0
.0
Jun
.0
.0
#
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
#
1979
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Jul
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Aug
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Sep
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Oct
.7
.0
#
0
3.4
1972
30
6.1
1975
5
1975
24
#
1996
.6
.2
.1
.0
.0
.2
.1
@
.0
Nov
2.3
2.0
#
0
4.7
1979
19
8.2
1979
2+
1996
16
1
1971
2.4
.8
.2
.0
.0
1.1
.0
.0
.0
Dec
4.8
3.6
1
0
6.3
1998
20
19.0
1983
11+
1983
30
4
1978
i
4.8
1.8
.2
@
.0
6.7
2.5
.8
.2
Ann
21.5
13.6
N/A
N/A
8.7
Feb
1989
4
19.0
Dec
1983
11+
Feb
1989
5
8+
Jan
1984
20.7
7.5
1.6
.1
.0
30.2
15.5
10.0
.7
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s) #Denotes trace amounts
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
-9/-9.9 represents missing values
Annual statistics for Mean/Median snow depths are not appropriate
043-C
(1) Derived from Snow Climatology and 1971-2000 dai y data
(2) Derived from 1971-2000 daily data
Complete documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
MN MPs--'- N
U.S. Dept, _ .t of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
Station: GRAND JUNCTION WALKER AP, CO
Climate Division: CO 2
Climatograt
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
NWS Call Sign: GJT
OM I
Elevation: 4,858 Feet Lat: 39°08N
111111V--,1111111
National Climatic Data er
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 053488
Lon: 108°32W
Precipitation (inches)
Precipitation Totals
Mean Number
of Days (3)
Precipitation Probabilities (i)
Probability that the monthly/annual precipitation will be equal to or less than the
indicated amount
Means/
Medians(1)
Extremes
Daily Precipitation
Monthly/Annual Precipitation vs Probability Levels
These values were determined from the incomple e gamma distribution
Month
Mean
Med-
Ian
Highest
Deily(2)
Year
Day
Highest
Moothly(1)
Year
LpWe9t
Moothly(1)
Year
0.01
0.10
0.50
1.00
.05
.10
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
.80
.90
.95
Jan
.60
.52
.64
1956
16
1.36+
1993
.09
1999
6.6
2.2
@
.0
.11
.16
.25
.33
.42
.51
.61
.73
.90
1.17
1.43
Feb
.50
.45
.58
1934
9
1.33
1989
.00
1972
5.4
1.5
.1
.0
.04
.10
.18
.26
.33
.41
.51
.62
.78
1.02
1.26
Mar
1.00
.87
1.02
1918
6
2.02
1979
.02+
1972
7.8
3.4
.3
@
.08
.15
.28
.42
.57
.74
.95
1.22
1.58
2.19
2.80
Apr
.86
.81
.86
1965
27
2.15
1997
.09
1982
7.1
3.0
.2
.0
.14
.22
.34
.46
.58
.71
.87
1.05
1.29
1.69
2.07
May
.98
1.10
1.83
1906
24
2.04
1995
.01
1974
7.1
3.3
.2
.0
.10
.17
.30
.44
.59
.75
.95
1.19
1.53
2.08
2.62
Jun
.41
.25
1.12
1912
8
1.68
1984
.00
1980
4.0
1.4
.1
.0
.01
.03
.07
.13
.19
.27
.37
.50
.68
.99
1.30
Jul
.66
.52
1.39
1974
18
1.92
1983
.01
1994
5.5
2.1
.2
@
.04
.07
.15
.24
.34
.46
.61
.79
1.05
1.50
1.94
Aug
.84
.62
1.43
1921
24
2.67
1997
.09
1975
6.3
2.5
.3
.1
.16
.23
.35
.47
.58
.71
.85
1.02
1.25
1.62
1.96
Sep
.91
.63
1.87
1941
22
2.84
1997
.01
1979
6.5
3.0
.4
.0
.08
.14
.26
.38
.52
.68
.87
1.10
1.43
1.98
2.51
Oct
1.00
.90
1.35
1908
18
3.45
1972
.02
1988
6.2
3.1
.4
.0
.07
.13
.25
.39
.54
.72
.94
1.21
1.60
2.25
2.89
Nov
.71
.62
1.08
1919
26
2.00
1983
.00
1989
6.0
2.4
.2
.0
.09
.18
.30
.40
.50
.61
.73
.88
1.07
1.38
1.67
Dec
.52
.49
1.16
1951
30
1.85
1983
.01
1976
5.6
1.9
.1
.0
.07
.11
.19
.26
.33
.42
.51
.63
.79
1.05
1.30
Ann
8.99
8.82
1.87
Sep
1941
22
3.45
Oct
1972
.00+
Nov
1989
74.1
29.8
2.5
.1
5.56
1
6.19
7.01
7.65
8.23
8.79
9.38
10.04
10.85
12.04
13.08
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s)
# Denotes amounts of a trace
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
** Statistics not computed because less than six years out of thirty had measurable precipitation
043-B
(1) From the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from station's available digital record: 1900-2001
(3) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
Complete documentation available from:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service
Station: GRAND JUNCTION WALKER AP, CO
Climate Division: CO 2
im!
Climatography
of the United States
No. 20
1971-2000
NWS Call Sign: GJT
= =IIIIIII NMI NM
.i
National Climatic Data Center
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
COOP ID: 053488
Elevation: 4,858 Feet Lat: 39°08N Lon: 108°32W
Temperature (°F)
Mean (1)
Extremes
Degree Days (1)
Base Temp 65
Mean Number of Days (3)
Month
Daily
Max
Daily
Min
Mean
Highest
Dolly(2)Daily(2)
Year
Day
Highest
Month(1)
Mean
Year
Lowest
Year
Day
Lowest
Mo°th(1)
Mean
Year
Heating
Cooling
Max
>-
100
Max
>-
90
Max
>_
50
Max
<_
32
Min
<_
32
Min
<_
0
Jan
36.6
15.6
26.1
62
1911
31
35.9
1981
-23
1963
13
10.6
1973
1194
0
.0
.0
2.7
10.0
30.1
3.0
Feb
45.4
22.7
34.1
70
1904
24
43.0
1995
-21
1933
8
18.7
1974
860
0
.0
.0
9.8
2.3
24.4
.7
Mar
55.7
31.0
43.4
81+
1971
26
48.5
1999
5+
1948
11
37.1
1976
656
0
.0
.0
23.8
.1
15.7
.0
Apr
64.3
37.5
50.9
89+
1992
30
58.5
1992
11
1975
2
44.5
1975
409
2
.0
.0
28.0
.0
6.1
.0
May
74.5
46.4
60.5
101
2000
29
65.8
2000
26
1970
2
54.9
1975
178
44
@
1.1
30.9
.0
.4
.0
Jun
86.9
55.3
71.1
105
1990
27
77.0
1994
34
1976
14
65.1
1975
33
232
1.4
15.4
30.0
.0
.0
.0
Jul
92.1
61.4
76.8
105+
1976
10
80.4
1994
44
1993
5
73.8
1987
12
394
2.8
24.0
31.0
.0
.0
.0
Aug
89.6
59.7
74.7
103+
2000
2
78.4
2000
43
1968
23
71.2
1987
1
318
.7
19.6
31.0
.0
.0
.0
Sep
80.3
50.4
65.4
100
1995
4
70.0
1998
28
1908
27
60.6
1985
73
100
@
4.3
30.0
.0
.2
.0
Oct
66.7
38.6
52.7
88
1963
1
57.2
1988
16
1917
29
47.9
1984
367
1
.0
.0
29.3
.0
3.5
.0
Nov
49.8
26.3
38.1
75
1977
5
43.0
1995
-2
1976
28
31.4
1979
792
0
.0
.0
15.9
.8
21.9
@
Dec
38.9
17.5
28.2
66
1901
6
38.9
1980
-21
1924
26
14.8
1978
1125
0
.0
.0
2.8
6.0
29.8
1.0
Ann
65.1
38.5
51.8
105+
Jun
1990
27
80.4
Jul
1994
-23
Jan
1963
13
10.6
Jan
1973
51700
1091
4.9
64.4
265.2
19.2
132.1
4.7
+ Also occurred on an earlier date(s)
@ Denotes mean number of days greater than 0 but less than .05
Complete documentation available from: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
Issue Date: February 2004
043-A
(1) From the 1971-2000 Monthly Normals
(2) Derived from station's available digital record: 1900-2001
(3) Derived from 1971-2000 serially complete daily data
EXHIBIT L WORST CASE RECLAMATION SCENARIO
The worst case reclamation scenario at the 5 Mile Pit will be when the greatest backfill is required
and the greatest dewatering is necessary to install said backfill. This will be at some point during
the mining of Phase 1. The backfill quantity is limited by a combination of the county permit (no
more than 1000 feet of unbackfilled mining slope) and the maximum depth of the final lake. This
can be found in Phase 1. The lake area at this point will be 7.3 acres.
Option 1 - Exposing Groundwater
1. Dewatering 7.3 acre lake that is 12 feet deep on average. 87.6 ac -ft @ $75/ac-ft = $6,570
2. Backfill to the lake level to close off exposed groundwater. 87.6 ac -ft = 141,328 CY.
141,328 CY @ $1.50/CY to haul and place = $211,992
3. Backfilling 1000 feet of 1.5H:1 V mining slope to 3H:1 V for a highwall height of 10 feet.
2,700 CY at $1.50/CY to haul and place = $4,050
4. Backfill and grade detention pond. 6,200 CY @ $1.50/CY to haul and place = $9,300
5. Rip road areas in preparation for topsoiling. 4 acres @ $250/ac. = $1,000
6. Replace topsoil on all disturbed areas. Assuming all areas disturbed except for Phases 2 and
3. 25.6 acres to a depth of 12 inches. 41,301 CY @ $1.50 CY to haul and place = $61,952
7. Remove all facilities and equipment. $5,000
8. Seeding and mulching all areas above water line. 25.6 acres @ $700/acre = $17,920
Based on these costs, and a 28% DRMS cost factor, the total bond for the 5 Mile Pit should be
$424,620.
Option 2 - Exposing Groundwater
1. Dewatering 7.3 acre lake that is 12 feet deep on average. 87.6 ac -ft @ $75/ac-ft = $6,570
2. Backfilling 1000 feet of 1.5H:1 V mining slope to 3H:1 V for a highwall height of 2 feet.
2,700 CY at $1.50/CY to haul and place = $4,050
3. Backfill and grade detention pond. 6,200 CY @ $1.50/CY to haul and place = $9,300
4. Rip road areas in preparation for topsoiling. 4 acres @ $250/ac. = $1,000
5 Mile Pit March 2016 L-1
5. Replace topsoil on all disturbed areas. Assuming all areas disturbed except for Phases 2 and
3. 25.6 acres to a depth of 12 inches. 41,301 CY @ $1.50 CY to haul and place = $61,952
6. Remove all facilities and equipment. $5,000
7. Seeding and mulching all areas above water line. 25.6 acres @ $700/acre = $17,920
Based on these costs, and a 28% DRMS cost factor, the total bond for the 5 Mile Pit should be
$135,414.
Worst case reclamation costs for each scenario are shown in Table L-1 below:
5 Mile Pit March 2016 L-2
Table L-1 Reclamation Task and Cost Estimate
Activity Description
Time (Months)
Cost ($)
Option 1 — Exposing Groundwater
Dewatering Phase 1 lake
0.25
6570
Backfill lake
1.0
211992
Backfilling 1000 feet of 10 foot tall highwall to 3H:1 V.
0.5
4050
Backfill and grade detention pond
0.25
9300
Rip road areas
0.25
1000
Replace topsoil on all disturbed areas
1.0
61952
Remove all facilities and equipment
0.25
5000
Seed and mulch all topsoiled areas
0.25
17920
Totals
2.5
$331,734
DRMS Costs (28% x direct costs)
$92,886
Total Bond Amount (Option 1)
$424,620
5 Mile Pit March 2016 L-3
Option 2 — Not Exposing Groundwater
Dewatering Phase 1 lake
0.25
6570
Backfilling 1000 feet of 10 foot tall highwall to 3H:1 V.
0.5
4050
Backfill and grade detention pond
0.25
9300
Rip road areas
0.25
1000
Replace topsoil on all disturbed areas
1.0
61952
Remove all facilities and equipment
0.25
5000
Seed and mulch all topsoiled areas
0.25
17920
Totals
2.5
$105,792
DRMS Costs (28% x direct costs)
$29,622
Total Bond Amount (Option 2)
$135,414
5 Mile Pit March 2016 L-4
EXHIBIT M OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED
The following permits are necessary for the full operation of the 5 Mile Pit:
1. Garfield County Special Use Permit — This has been approved since 2008.
2. CDPHE Discharge Permit - A stormwater/process water discharge permit will be needed
for this operation.
3. APEN — A fugitive air emissions permit is needed from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment since the site will mine more than 70,000 tons per year.
Air emissions permits will be in place for all portable equipment utilized on site which
requires a permit.
4. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be needed at this site
to cover the storage and transport of fuel and other liquids that are regulated by the EPA.
5. A gravel well permit with the Colorado Division of Water Resources for the exposure of
ground water.
6. An augmentation plan from the State of Colorado engineer's office prior to exposing
groundwater.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 M-1
EXHIBIT N RIGHT OF ENTRY
The gravel lease with the property owner is attached.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 N-1
GRAVEL LEASE
THIS GRAVEL LEASE is made and executed effective the 11 day of January, 2012, (the
"Commencement Date") between 5 -Mile Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
whose address for purposes of this Agreement is 8191 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92808 ("Lessor"), and Elam Construction, Inc., doing business as Grand Junction Concrete Pipe
Co. and as Grand Junction Pipe & Supply Company, a Colorado Corporation, whose address for
purposes of this Agreement is P. 0. Box 1849, Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 ("GJP").
RECITALS
A. Lessor is the owner of real property, including all interest in the sand, gravel, and
certain mineral rights, located in Garfield County, Colorado, described as follows:
See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
(the "Property").
B. The patties desire to enter into this Gravel Lease for the purpose of allowing GJP to
extract sand, gravel and excess overburden from the Property, and to utilize the remaining portions
of the Property for certain purposes, on the terms and conditions set forth below.
AGREEMENT
I . Lessor hereby leases the Property to GJP for the purpose of extracting, hauling,
processing and stockpiling sand, gravel and excess overburden (collectively "materials") from the
Property, and for the placement and use of crushers and other equipment used in connection with
the extracting, hauling, processing, and stockpiling of the sand, gravel and excess overburden
extracted from the Property. For purposes of this Gravel Lease, "excess overburden" is defined as
all dirt, soil and similar materials overlying the sand and gravel deposits on the Property that is not
needed for the proper reclamation of the Property. GJP shall have the exclusive right to use the
Property for the purposes described above during the term of this Gravel Lease and any extension
thereof, and Lessor shall not lease the Property to any third parties for such purposes or otherwise
use the Property for such purposes during the term of this Gravel Lease and any extension thereof.
Lessor shall be entitled to use the Property during the term of this Gravel Lease and any extension
thereof to the extent such use does not unreasonably interfere with GJP's operations under this
Gravel Lease. GJP may realign any existing roadways on the Property, and create other roads on
the Property, as necessary for its operations. Lessor shall have perpetual rights of access over and
across all roadways within the Property for the purpose of accessing the other adjacent properties
owned by Lessor for ranch maintenance purposes, oil and gas activities and other purposes that are
mutually agreed upon by GJP and Lessor. Any use of the roadways within the Property by Lessor
during the term of this Gravel Lease and any extension thereof shall be made in a manner that does
not unreasonably interfere with GJP's operations under this Gravel Lease and in conformance with
all reasonable health and safety policies of GJP or laws or rules imposed by governmental agencies
with jurisdiction over GJP's operations under this Gravel Lease. The creation and realignment of
roads on the Property shall be done at no cost to Lessor and with approval of Lessor in each
instance. GJP agrees to keep the haul road utilized by it in a reasonably dust free condition. In
planning its mining activities on the Property, GJP shall consult with Lessor in order to develop a
layout of the pit area which will be satisfactory to Lessor. GJP shall also consult with Lessor in
developing a reclamation plan ("Reclamation Plan") for the Property. The Reclamation Plan and
pit area layout will be subject to Lessor's approval, which approvals will not be unreasonably
withheld. Lessor agrees that any layout of the pit area must be such that it will allow GJP to
economically mine sand, gravel and excess overburden from the Property, and that any
Reclamation Plan developed for the Property must be economically feasible.
2. GJP shall conduct and be entitled to conduct certain activities, and the term of this
Caravel Lease shall commence, as follows:
�J
A. GJP shall proceed with duc diligence to apply for all governmental permits
necessary to conduct its operations on the Property under this Gravel Lease. Such permits
include, without limitation, a conditional use permit from Garfield County, a mining permit from
the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("DRMS"), a well permit from the
Colorado State Engineer, approval of a substitute water supply plan by the Colorado State
Engineer's office, a state highway access permit, a flood plain permit, a discharge permit, an
emissions permit, and any necessary Section 404 permits or other permits from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. If any of these permits shall be denied or not finally granted within three
years from the execution date of this Gravel Lease (as set forth in the introductory paragraph of
this Gravel Lease), then this Gravel Lease shall terminate and be of no further force and effect.
Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2.B., below, the term of this Gravel Lease shall commence
upon execution date of this Gravel Lease (the "Commencement Date°). The execution date of this
Gravel Lease shall be the last date on which this Gravel Lease is signed by either of the parties.
GJP shall have the privilege of access to the Property for the purpose of performing the work
necessary to apply for and obtain the permits referred to above. Lessor agrees to cooperate with
and aid GJP as necessary in applying for and obtaining all necessary permits, but at no cost to
Lessor. Within ten days after the execution date of this Gravel Lease, Lessor provide GJP with a
list of all governmental permits that it currently holds, if any, relating to the Property. If GJP
determines that any of these permits would be useful to it in connection with its operations under
this Gravel Lease, and if such permits are transferable, Lessor shall transfer (without warranty)
such permits to GJP within ten days after GJP requests such transfer. GJP shall prepare and
provide all instruments needed to make such transfer of permits. GJP shall present all
applications and plans (referred to in this Paragraph as "Permit Applications"), prior to their filing
with the responsible regulatory authority(ies), to Lessor for its approval, which approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld. Lessee shall diligently pursue the approval of all such Permit
Applications and permits needed to commence mining operations at the Property. Once the
initial permits have been approved by the responsible regulatory autliority(ies) and delivered to
GJP, any renewal or significant amendments thereto shall require GJP to present to Lessor for its
approval all application materials filed to obtain same (referred to in this Paragraph as "Permit
Amendment Applications"), with such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. GJP shall
provide all proposed Pernik Applications and Permit Amendment Applications to Lessor in the
manner set forth in Paragraph 17, below. Lessor shall give GJP written notice approving or
disapproving each proposed Permit Application and Permit Amendment Application within seven
business days after the Permit Application or Permit Amendment Application is given to Lessor.
Any disapproval shall state the reason(s) for the disapproval, and Lessor and GJP will thereafter
work together in good faith to resolve the reason(s) for the disapproval. If Lessor does not
provide GJP with a notice either approving or disapproving a proposed Permit Application or
Permit Amendment Application within seven business days, as required above, the Permit
Application or Permit Amendment Application shall be deemed to have been approved by Lessor.
B. GJP shall be entitled, but not obligated, to investigate the title to the
Property and the existence of any mineral reservations. If GJP determines, in its sole opinion, that
any of the surface minerals may have been reserved or that Lessor's title to the Property is
otherwise not satisfactory, GJP may, but shall not be required to, take whatever actions it deems
appropriate to cure the problems it identifies. Such actions could include, without limitation, the
filing of a quiet title action in Lessor's name, or obtaining conveyances of reserved mineral
interests from the owner thereof to Lessor. All such actions shall be at GJP's sole expense. At
GJP's request, Lessor shall cooperate with GJP in all such actions but at no cost to Lessor. If in its
sole discretion GJP is not satisfied with Lessor's title to the Property atter any investigation it
conducts and any curative actions it may attempt, GJP shall be entitled to terminate this Gravel
Lease. In order to terminate this Gravel Lease under this Paragraph 2.B., GJP must give written
4
notice of termination to Lessor no later than ninety days after the Commencement Date, provided,
however, that if GJP elects to file a quiet title action, the notice of termination shall be given no
later than one year after the Commencement Date.
3. The initial term of this Gravel Lease is for a period of thirteen (13) years,
commencing on the Commencement Date. GJP and Lessor may at their discretion mutually
agree to extend this Gravel Lease for an additional period of up to ten (10) years after the
expiration of the initial term, under the same terms and conditions as provided for in the initial
term of this Gravel Lease, if productive extraction is continuing. To extend this Gravel Lease, the
Lessor and Lessee must come to a mutually acceptable agreement in writing to do so not less than
thirty (30) days prior to the end of the initial term.
4. GJP shall have the right to install sheds, buildings, machinery, pumps, equipment,
personal property, telephone lines, electric lines and water lines on the Property reasonably needed
in connection with the extracting, hauling, processing, and stockpiling of the sand, gravel and
excess overburden extracted from the Property, and shall remove such property and equipment
from the Property at the end of the lease term or upon any other termination of this Gravel Lease.
Lessor shall not be liable for payment of any utility or other charges for sheds, buildings,
machinery, pumps, equipment, personal property, telephone lines, electric lines and water lines
installed by GJP.
5. In consideration of this Gravel Lease, GJP agrees to pay to Lessor as follows:
A. GJP shall pay royalties to Lessor at the following rates:
i. A royalty of sand and gravel mined
and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease (the "Gravel Royalty").
ii. A royalty of of excess overburden
mined and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease (the "Overburden Royalty").
notice of termination to Lessor no later than ninety days after the Commencement Date, provided,
however, that if GJP elects to file a quiet title action, the notice of termination shall be given no
later than one year ager the Commencement Date.
3. The initial term of this Gravel Lease is for a period of thirteen (13) years,
commencing on the Commencement Date. GJP and Lessor may at their discretion mutually
agree to extend this Gravel Lease for an additional period of up to ten (10) years after the
expiration of the initial term, under the same terms and conditions as provided for in the initial
term of this Gravel Lease, if productive extraction is continuing. To extend this Gravel Lease, the
Lessor and Lessee must come to a mutually acceptable agreement in writing to do so not less than
thirty (30) days prior to the end of the initial term.
4. GJP shall have the right to install sheds, buildings, machinery, pumps, equipment,
personal property, telephone lines, electric lines and water lines on the Property reasonably needed
in connection with the extracting, hauling, processing, and stockpiling of the sand, gravel and
excess overburden extracted from the Property, and shall remove such property and equipment
from the Property at the end of the lease tern or upon any other termination of this Gravel Lease.
Lessor shall not be liable for payment of any utility or other charges for sheds, buildings,
machinery, pumps, equipment, personal property, telephone lines, electric lines and water lines
installed by GJP.
5. In consideration of this Gravel Lease, GJP agrees to pay to Lessor as follows:
A. GJP shall pay royalties to Lessor at the following rates:
i. A royalty of of sand and gravel mined
and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease (the "Gravel Royalty").
ii. A royalty of
of excess overburden
mined and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease (the "Overburden Royalty").
iii. An additional royalty, in addition to the Gravel Royalty and
Overburden Royalty, of $0.15 per ton (2,000 pounds) of sand, gravel and excess overburden mined
and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease (the "Water Royalty").
iv. The Gravel Royalty, the Overburden Royalty, and the Water
Royalty will collectively be referred to in this Gravel Lease as the "Product Royalties." The
Product Royalties shall all be subject to adjustment as provided in Paragraph S.B., below
B. During the initial term and any extended term of this Gravel Lease, annually
on the anniversary date of the issuance of the final permit needed for commencement of any
mining of any materials from the Property (the "Final Permit Date"), the Product Royalties
payable to Lessor shall increase in proportion to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, "All Items" category, U.S. City Average, as prepared
and published by the Department of Labor, United States of America. Such increase shall relate
to the index published for the month of the Final Permit Date, as compared to the most current
monthly index available on the anniversary date of the Final Permit Date in each year of the lease
term or any extension thereof. Such increase, if any, when so determined, shall control until the
next anniversary date. If for any reason the described Index shall no longer be published, then the
parties shall attempt to reach a mutual agreement on an index reasonably similar thereto. If no
mutual agreement can be obtained, then the index to be applied shall be determined by arbitration
under the Rules and Procedures of the American Arbitration Association (Commercial).
C. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6 below, no Product Royalties shall
be payable to Lessor unless and until the sand, gravel and/or excess overburden, as the case may
be, is removed from the Property.
D. GJP shall provide Lessor with a written statement signed and certified by an
authorized officer of GJP as to accurate quantities of nll sand, gravel, and/or excess overburden
6
c'
removed by it during the preceding month and, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6, below,
shall make payments to Lessor of any Product Royalties due by the 20th day of each month.
E. GJP shall install scales and weigh all sand, gravel and excess overburden
before or at the time of removal from the Property and shall preserve the weight tickets. Lessor
shall have the right to review the weight tickets during GJP's normal business hours.
F. For purposes of calculation of the royalty payment due, quantities of
materials for which the royalty payment is due will be measured as follows:
(i) Use of Scales. All materials shall be weighed on a certified scale at the
time when materials are removed from the Property or mixed with other products. If materials on
which a royalty payment is due are mixed with non-excavated materials (for example, in case of
mixing sand and gravel with water and Portland cement in the concrete batch plant), then for the
purpose of calculating the royalty payment, the weight of the excavated materials shall be
separately weighed using a certified scales prior to being delivered to concrete or asphalt batch
operations on the Property or mixed with other materials. For record keeping and control
purposes, the mixed product shall also be weighed prior to leaving the Property.
(ii) Scale Adjustments. Accuracy of the scale shall be checked and
adjustments made at least as often as required to continue to be certified. Records of the accuracy
check and adjustments shall be preserved and made available in the same manner as other records.
6. GJP shall pay advance royalties to Lessor as follows:
A. GJP shall pay Lessor an advance royalty of upon mutual
execution of this Gravel Lease. Thereafter, GJP shall pay Lessor advance royalties of
per year, commencing on the first anniversary date of the Commencement Date, and continuing on
each annual anniversary date of the lease term thereafter (through and including the last
anniversary date), and, if the lease term is mutually extended by the parties for an additional term
as set forth in Paragraph 3 above, on the commencement date and on each annual anniversary date
7
of the extended lease term (through and including the last anniversary date of the extended lease
term). The advance royalties paid shall be offset against the Gravel Royalties accruing under this
Gravel Lease and the Water Royalties that accrue on the sand and gravel mined and removed from
the Property under this Gravel Lease (referred to in this Paragraph 6 as the "Gravel Water
Royalties") in the manner set forth below. ']'he advance royalties shall not be offset against the
Overburden Royalties accruing under this Gravel Lease or the Water Royalties that accrue on the
excess overburden mined and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease. If this Gravel
Lease is terminated pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 2.A. or 2.B., Lessor shall be entitled to
retain all advance royalty payments paid to it under this Gravel Lease prior to the date of
termination. Any advance royalty payment that is not received by Lessor within 10 days of its due
date shall be subject to a late charge equal to 8% of the payment due. Such late charge shall not be
considered an additional advance royalty payment but rather a charge for late payment.
B. If the advance royalty paid for a year exceeds the amount of Gravel
Royalties and Gravel Water Royalties accruing in that year, the excess shall not be used to reduce
the amount of any advance royalties payable in future years. Utile amount of Gravel Royalties and
Gravel Water Royalties accruing in a year exceeds the advance royalty paid for that year, the
amount of the excess shall be used to reduce the amount of advance royalty accruing for the next
year.
C. All advance royalties payable hereunder shall be offset against Gravel
Royalties and Gravel Water Royalties which shall accrue and be payable to Lessor for sand and
gravel mined and removed from the Property under this Gravel Lease. GJP shall maintain records
of the amounts of advance royalties paid under this Gravel Lease, and each month shall deduct the
Gravel Royalties and Gravel Water Royalties that have accrued for materials removed during the
preceding month from the total amount of advance royalties that have been paid. If any excess
advance royalties remain at the end of the terns (or, if this Gravel Lease is extended, at the end of
8
the extended term) or other termination of this Gravel Lease, Lessor shall be entitled to retain such
excess royalties, and shall not be required to refund the excess to GJP.
D. If commercial sand and gravel shall be mined out of the Property before all
advance royalty payments are due and payable, GJP may give written notice thereof to Lessor
(referred to in this Paragraph as the "Termination Notice"), and thereafter GJP shall not be
obligated to pay any additional advance royalties. GJP shall then vacate the Property with
reasonable dispatch and this Gravel Lease shall terminate, subject to the obligations for
reclamation as set forth in Paragraph 12 below. GJP shall calculate the amount of materials in any
stockpiles remaining on the Property as of the date the Termination Notice is given and shall pay
the Lessor royalties, at the then current royalty rate, on such amount within thirty days after the
Termination Notice is given. Any remaining advance royalties previously paid by GJP shall be
offset against the royalties due on these stockpiled materials. All materials in the stockpiles shall
either be removed from the Property within two years after the date the Termination Notice is
given or shall be incorporated into any reclamation work done by GJP on the Property. No
royalty shall be due when such materials are actually removed fi•oin the Property, because the
royalties on all the materials will have been paid within thirty days after the Termination Notice is
given. For the purposes of this Paragraph, "mined out" means the removal of substantially all of
the minable commercial sand and gravel from the Property, with the exception of the area needed
for processing of the mined material, which area shall not exceed 10 acres in size.
E. GJP shall keep and maintain adequate and accurate records of the quantities of
Materials mined and removed from the Property. Lessor shall have a right at all reasonable times
during business hours and upon reasonable prior notice to examine and audit such records of GJP
at the offices of GJP and to verify the quantities of Materials removed from the Property and the
accuracy of the scales uscd to with the Materials.
7 The parties agree as follows with respect to water and water rights:
9
A. Promptly after execution of this Gravel Lease, GJP shall file an application
for approval of a substitute water supply plan ("SWSP") with the Colorado State Engineer's office
to replace the water depletions resulting from GJP's operations under this Gravel Lease (the
"SWSP Application"). GJP shall also file with the appropriate water court an application (the
"Water Rights Application") to adjudicate water rights and for approval of an augmentation or
other replacement plan ("Augmentation Plan") for the water uses and depletions resulting from
GJP's operations under this Gravel Lease. The SWSP Application and the Water Rights
Application will be filed in the name of GJP, as lessee, and will provide that GJP's interest in the
water rights and augmentation plan will cease upon expiration or termination of this Gravel Lease.
The water rights sought in the Water Rights Application will be for industrial purposes, including
but not limited to evaporation, dust suppression, aggregate washing, and product moisture losses.
Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, GJP shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary
augmentation or replacement water or water rights for use in the SWSP and the Augmentation Plan
and shall pay the costs of obtaining and using such water and water rights during the term of this
Gravel Lease and any extension thereof. GJP shall prosecute the SWSP Application and the
Water Rights Application to conclusion with diligence, provided, however, that GJP shall not be
required to accept any terms and conditions in any SWSP approved by the State Engineer's office
or in any decree entered or proposed to be entered with respect to the Water Rights Application
which are not acceptable to it in its sole discretion. Copies of any engineering work that GJP may
have prepared shall be given to Lessor, upon request. Lessor shall cooperate with and assist GJP in
the prosecution of the Water Rights Application at no cost to Lessor. GJP shall be entitled to
utilize, without charge, any water rights so approved or adjudicated for evaporation, reclamation
purposes, dust suppression, product moisture losses, aggregate washing, or other uses needed in its
operations on the Property during the term of this Gravel Lease, and any substitute water supply
plans or augmentation or replacement plans which may be approved or adjudicated.
B. At the appropriate time during or after the SWSP or adjudication process
described in Paragraph 7.A., above, GJP shall apply for a well permit from the Colorado State
Engineer's office for the mining of the Mining Property under this Gravel Lease (the "Well
Permit"), at its sole cost and expense. The application shall be filed in the name of GJP, as GJP
under this Gravel Lease.
C. After the expiration of the lease term or other termination of this Gravel
Lease, GJP shall assign and convey all rights and obligations under the SWSP, the Well Permit, all
water and water rights relating to the Property, including any lakes or pools that may be left on or
with the Property as a result of GJP's mining, and all augmentation and replacement plans to
Lessor, and Lessor shall assume all obligations under or relating to the SWSP, Well Permit, water
and water rights, and any augmentation or replacement plans. Thereafter, GJP shall have no
further interest in or obligations under the SWSP, Well Permit, water and water rights relating to
the Property, or any augmentation or replacement plans, except to the extent they are needed for
the proper reclamation of the Property, in which case Lessor agrees that they can be used for
reclamation purposes. GJP has agreed to pay the Water Royalty identified in Paragraph 5.A.iii.,
above, in order to provide funds to Lessor to assist Lessor in meeting any obligations it may have
under or relating to the SWSP, Well Permit, water and water rights, and any augmentation or
replacement plans after the expiration of the lease term or other termination of this Gravel Lease.
Lessor shall be solely responsible for investing, managing and applying the Water Royalty
amounts paid to it, and GJP makes no representations as to whether those funds will be adequate to
meet all Lessor's obligations under the SWSP, Well Permit, water and water rights, and/or any
augmentation or replacement plans.
8. Lessor warrants title to the Property and to all sand, gravel and excess overburden
located on the Property, and further warrants and covenants that GJP shall have the right to extract
sand, gravel and excess overburden from the Property and otherwise use and occupy the Property
cf_g
processing and stockpiling of the materials under this Gravel I,ease. All improvements shall be
removed from the Property by GJP at the expiration or other termination of this Gravel Lease,
unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
12, GJP shall, at the expiration of the lease term or upon other termination of this
Gravel Lease, surrender the Property to Lessor, subject to GJP's reclamation obligations as set
forth below, Any mined material remaining on the Property at the expiration or termination of
this Gravel Lease shall become the property of Lessor (or GJP shall remove at Lessor's request),
and no royalty shall be payable by GJP on such material, if left on site. Within three years after
expiration or termination of this Gravel Lease, or within three years after GJP has fully mined out
the Property, whichever comes first, GJP shall complete the reclamation of the Property at GJP's
sole expense in accordance with the approved Reclamation Plan and the terms of the permits
issued by the DRMS and other applicable governmental entities. If this three-year period occurs
after the expiration or termination of this Gravel Lease, GJP shall have the right of access to the
Property during this three-year period to perform the reclamation work. At the conclusion of the
reclamation work, the Property will be surrendered to Lessor in the condition agreed under the
approved Reclamation Plan and permits.
13. Liabilities.
A. GJP shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any
and all claims, demands, judgments, and liability, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert
fees, by or to any and all third parties resulting from all acts or omissions of GJP or its agents,
representatives, officers, employees, lessees and contractors in, on or about the Property. The
foregoing indemnification shall all survive the termination of this Gravel Lease. The indemnity
provisions set forth in this Gravel Lease shall apply to amounts paid in settlement of a claim by an
indemnified party only if such settlement is approved by the indemnifying party, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
13
B. GJP agrees to keep the Property free and clear of liens, charges, claims or
demands arising from its operations hereunder and to promptly pay for all labor performed on the
Property and for all supplies, materials, and equipment used or placed on the Property by GJP.
GJP shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all claims,
charges, demands, causes of action, damages and liability, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and expert fees, that arise from or are connected to the acts or omissions of the Lessee hereunder or
to those of its contractors, subcontractors, employees, officers, agents or lessees in regard to
providing labor and acquiring or installing materials, equipment and supplies for operations under
this Gravel Lease.
14. Insurance.
A. GJP shall maintain, at its sole expense and at all times, statutory Worker's
Compensation Insurance coverage as required under the laws and regulations of the State of
Colorado for all its officers and employees who perform work for GJP hereunder.
B. GJP shall purchase, at its sole expense, and shall maintain at all times the
following minimum insurance protection:
• Comprehensive General Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single
limit;
• Employer's Liability Insurance in the amount of $100,000 each occurrence;
• Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit;
and
• Insurance for other risks ordinarily insured against in similar operations pursuant to
standard operating policy of GJP.
GJP agrees that it shall require all independent contractors, contractors and subcontractors
who perform work in connection with the Property to have similar and adequate insurance in hill
force and effect.
15. Prompt payment of the amounts to be paid by GJP and compliance N1 ith all terms
and conditions are of the essence of this Gravel Lease. If GJP fails to make payments or fails to
perform as agreed, Lessor may give GJP written notice of its intention to terminate this Gravel
Lease. If the default complained of is not cured within twenty (20) days after such notice is given
to GJP, Lessor shall be entitled to terminate this Gravel Lease; provided, however, that if the
default is non-monetary and cannot reasonably be cured within the 20 day notice period, GJP shall
have a reasonable time to correct the default if GJP commences measures to cure the default within
the twenty day period and proceeds diligently thereafter to cure the default. If this Gravel Lease is
terminated under this paragraph, GJP shall surrender the Property to Lessor and perform the
reclamation work as provided in Paragraph 12. Any accrued royalties and all necessary
reclamation work shall remain the obligation of GJP and shall survive the termination of this
Gravel Lease under this paragraph.
16. If either party defaults in its performance under this Gravel Lease, or if it is
necessary for either party to take any action to enforce the terms of this Gravel Lease, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, and the other party shall pay the
prevailing party, all reasonable costs incurred by the prevailing party, including without limitation
court costs and attorneys' fees, regardless of whether actual litigation or court proceedings are
involved.
17. Any N1 ritten notice which may be desired or required pursuant to this Gravel Lease
may be given by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by a national express
delivery service such as Federal Express or UPS. Any such mailing to either party shall be at the
address set forth in the introductory paragraph to this Gravel Lease. A change of address may he
established b) ritten notice in accordance ‘vith this paragraph. Such notice may also be
delivered personally IA ith receipt taken for it. Such notice shall be effective on the date of
deliver.
I 8. Each party warrants and represents to the other that such pasty has taken all actions
necessary to make this Gravel Lease a valid obligation binding upon the party.
19. This Gravel Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors
and permitted assigns of the parties.
20. Each party agrees to execute upon request of the other party a memorandum of this
Gravel I. case in a mutually agreeable form suitable for recording. Either party may record this
memorandum in the records of Garfield County, Colorado, at such party's expense.
21. Assignment or Sublease. The provisions of this Gravel Lease shall extend to and
be binding upon the successors, assigns and sub -lessees of Lessor and GJP; provided however, that
GJP shall not assign the Gravel Lease or sublease all or any significant part of the Property without
having first secured the approval of said assignment from Lessor (which Lessor may decline in its
sole discretion, except any sublease for Plant purposes, which approval shall not be unreasonably
denied provided the Plant sub -lessee is an operator who is reasonably experienced and financially
qualified for such operations). Any assignment or sublease shall not release or relieve GJP of its
duties and obligations under this Gravel Lease. Plant shall mean a portable and/or fixed facility
for processing, storing, washing, sorting, handling, loading and shipping of materials mined from
the Property, along with ancillary facilities, and shall also mean a concrete or asphalt batch plant.
22. Operations. GJP shall conduct its operations on the Property, if any, in a prudent
and workmanlike manner and in accordance with good and accepted mining and business practices
and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, and all
applicable permits.
23. Entire Agreement. This Gravel Lease contains the entire agreement between the
parties hereto. and neither it nor any part of it mai be changed, altered. modified, or limited orally
or b) an agreement between the parties unless such agreement be expressed in ‘‘riting, signed.
and acknowledged by the Lessor and CLIP, or their respective heirs, personal representatives.
successors and assigns.
24. Counterparts/Facsimile Signatures. This Gravel I.ease niay be executed by
facsimile signature and/or in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
and all of which together shall constitute one and the sante lease.
IN WITNESS WI IEREOF, the parties to this Gravel Lease have signed it as of the day and
year set forth above.
ELAM CONSTRUCTION, INC., doing 5 -MILE RANCI I, LLC
business as GRAND JUNCTION
CONCRETE PIPE COMPANY and as
GRAND JUNCTION PI E & SUPPLY CO.
By:erd
Title: LE..n
17
Naive:
Title: Manager
SrnTEor QAC./Pokit IIR )
?) ss.
COUNTY OF O ou 66. _ )
The foregoing agreement was acknowledged before me this JO* day of January. 2012. by
as Manager of 5 -Mile Ranch, 1.I.C.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. '/
My Commission Expires:. "o1-/ /4
LYNETTE M. KELLU
Commission # 1883166
Notary Public - California
Orange County
M Comm. Tres Mar 21.2014
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF MESA
Not (-2›.4Acin. 441-644,--
Public
'l'he foregoing agreement was acknowledged before me this \-1. day of
.�wa.4ay.y( , 20 t1, by La,,.0._ dLkbGf— , President of Elam Construction, Inc., doing
business as Grlthd Junction Concrete Pipe Company and as Grand Junction Pipe & Supply Co., a Colorado
Corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires: U..,'6
Notary Public
IR
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
GRAVEL PIT
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SE1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 28 AND IN SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 98 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY
OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33, A BLM CAP IN
PLACE, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 800°01'55"E ALONG THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 33 A DISTANCE OF 1,369.44 FEET; THENCE LEAVING
SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY S17°45'22"W ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
UNA ROAD A DISTANCE OF 1,085.87 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE
COLORADO RIVER, AS DEFINED IN BOOK 802 AT PAGE 964 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE ALOI1O SAID CENTERLINE AS DEFINED,
N89°04'13'W A DISTANCE OF 1,170.74 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE 885°15'21'W A DISTANCE OF 324.97 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
SAID CENTERLINE S59°20'30"W A DISTANCE OF 316.71 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S48'53'02"WA DISTANCE OF 337.31 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERUNE 820°46'48'W A DISTANCE OF 328.01 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S11'5T01'W A DISTANCE OF 859.10
FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S84°03'25"W A DISTANCE OF
1,512.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE N55°52'001W A DISTANCE OF
328.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD; THENCE N34'08'00"E ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE
OF 2,309.28 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC
OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,080.15 FEET AND A CENTRA!.
ANGLE OF 07°48'48", A DISTANCE OF 420.03 FEET, (CHORD BEARS N37°12'64"E A
DISTANCE OF 419.70 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERUNE OF SAID
SECTION 33; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N00°19'l2'W ALONG
SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 73.67 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID
CENTERLINE AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE ARC OF A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,815.06 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
12°14'22", A DISTANCE OF 601.38 FEET, (CHORD BEARS N48°41'42"E A DISTANCE OF
600.21 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N55°08'54"E A
DISTANCE OF 98.96 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
N55°29'00"E A DISTANCE OF 2,142.73 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
N87°19'01"E ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY A DISTANCE OF 94 FS�TT
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY AND CONTINUUM; ;SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY N55°29'00"E A DISTANCE OF 299.37 FEET TO A tqb E
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE LEAVII 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY
S01°57'23"E ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARYA DISTAN 157.92 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 130.558 A RIiS. MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT
A
/v2
Parcel Size =130.558 Ac.
Total Gravel Pit=78.0 Ac.
EXHIBIT 0
OWNERS OF AFFECTED LAND AND MINERAL TO BE MINED
5 -Mile Ranch, LLC
8191 E Kaiser Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92808
5 Mile Pit March 2016 0-1
EXHIBIT P MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN TWO MILES
5 Mile Pit March 2016 P-1
EXHIBIT Q PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICES TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5 Mile Pit March 2016 Q-1
0
CD
CD
a1
CD
0
CD
_3IAJO I• •.I
ARTICLE NUMBER
9414 7118 9956 3141 4724 55
ARTICLE ADDRESS TO:
Debeque-Plateau Valley Conservation District
2738 Crossroads Blvd Suite 102
Grand Junction CO 81506-3960
FEES
Postage per piece
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
Total Postage & Fees:
$0.48'/2
3.45
2.80
$6.73'/2
8001
ARTICLE NUMBER
9414 7118 9956 3141 4442 85
ARTICLE ADDRESS TO:
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Suite 101
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs CO 81601-3355
FEES
Postage per piece
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
Total Postage & Fees:
f 1/3
o PosHem
tlO�rk
py i
.t;rlf��
$0.48'/2
3.45
2.80
$6.731/2
1
EXHIBIT R PROOF OF FILING WITH COUNTY CLERK
5 Mile Pit March 2016 R-1
Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLLC
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303) 346-5196 Fax: (303)-346-6934
Parker, CO USA 80138 E-Mail:info@lewicki.biz
March 10, 2016
Garfield County Clerk and Recorder
109 8th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Clerk:
Enclosed is a notice for an amendment application to the Colorado Division of Reclamation,
Mining, and Safety for the 112c gravel permit for the pit known as the 5 Mile Pit, located
approximately 4.3 miles southwest of Parachute, CO near I 70. The applicant is Elam Construction,
Inc. The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety requires evidence that the
application has been filed with your office. Therefore, please sign and date the box below. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Ben Langenfeld, P. E.
Greg Lewicki and Associates
The application was received on the following date:
by:
EXHIBIT S PERMANENT MAN-MADE STRUCTURES
The following is an inventory of man-made structures within 200 feet of the disturbed area. All of
these structures are shown on Map C-1. The landowner boundaries can also be found on Map C-1.
Damage waiver agreements are attached to this exhibit. In the event that a damage waiver was
unobtainable, see the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit.
1. Union Pacific Railroad, ROW, and culverts, along the north side of the property
2. Xcel power line, power poles, and easement, along the east side of the property
3. Battlement Parkway (CR 300)
4. Fence along the north property line
5 Mile Pit March 2016 S-1
RULE 1.6.2(1)(B)
Prior to the submittal of the application, a sign was erected at the entrance to the site which
contained all the required information regarding Rule 1.6.2(1)(b).
Please see enclosed sign certification.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 RULE -1
THIS SITE IS THE LOCATION OF A PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OPERATION. ELAM
CONSTRUCTION, INC., WHOSE ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ARE 556 STRUTHERS AVENUE,
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501-3826 AND (970) 242-5370, HAS APPLIED FOR A RECLAMATION PERMIT
WITH THE COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD. ANYONE WISHING TO COMMENT ON
THE APPLICATION MAY VIEW THE APPLICATION AT THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDER'S OFFICE: 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 200, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601, AND
SHOULD SEND COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO THE
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING, AND SAFETY, 1313 SHERMAN ST, ROOM 215, DENVER,
COLORADO 80203.
Certification:
I, , hereby certify that I posted a sign containing the above notice
for the proposed permit area known as the 5 Mile Pit , on
SIGNATURE DATE
GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY EXHIBIT
There are no buildings or any structures outside the permit area which could be affected by the
excavation. A minimum 100 foot buffer will be maintained from the permit boundary line to all new
excavations. There will be no mining related disturbance within 30 feet of the property line.
Since the permanent condition of the slopes will be backfilled 3H: 1V earth slopes, two scenarios are
evaluated:
2.1 Scenario 1 — All Backfill is Gravel
Figure U-1, from Huang, shows typical internal angles of friction for various materials. Assuming
that the gravel is classified as GC (clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel -sand -clay), this material has
an internal angle of friction of approximately 34 degrees.
The Factor of Safety (FOS) for sand and gravel with a (3H:1V) 18.4 degree slope in GC classified
material with an assumed internal angle of friction of 34 degrees can be approximated by ignoring
the cohesion component of the stability and simply evaluating the internal angle of friction as
follows:
FOS =
Tangent of Internal Angle of Friction
Tangent of Actual Angle of Failure Surface
Tan 34° 0.6745
FOS = — — 2.0
Tan 18.4° 0.3326
2.2 Scenario 2 — Backfill is Sand
Figure U-1, from Huang, shows typical internal angles of friction for various materials. Assuming
that the backfill is classified as SM (silty sands, poorly graded sand -silt mixture), this material has an
internal angle of friction of approximately 34 degrees.
5 Mile Pit March 2016 GEO-3
The Factor of Safety (FOS) for sand backfill with a (3H:1V) 18.4 degree slope in SM classified
material with an assumed internal angle of friction of 34 degrees can be approximated by ignoring
the cohesion component of the stability and simply evaluating the internal angle of friction as
follows:
FOS =
Tangent of Internal Angle of Friction
Tangent of Actual Angle of Failure Surface
Tan 34° 0.6745
FOS = — 2.0
Tan 18.4° 0.3326
Ignoring cohesion in this scenario is done to accommodate a range of saturation conditions.
Installing SM classified material at no steeper than 3H:1V ensures that the slope is stable regardless
of the water table level.
2.3 Conclusion
The factor of safety in both scenarios is 2.0, well above the minimum of 1.5 for permanent
conditions.
Ben Langenfeld, P.E.
P.E.# 0047151
Date:
5 Mile Pit March 2016 GEO-4
E$
E
1
5 Mile Pit March 2016
Weg
U
5
EN�
ESN
A n T n +1 +1 +I }1 41 +1 +1 +1 . +I +1 .
A;;ARin4.1:4X nt
ggg s gg
666.16 66
666666 6 6
E O O S p G M41 . n n
eccccdoc pd
� • • r #I +1 +I +I +I }I }I it • }I it
66666666 c --
n e n r n e v n v n n N N
== .1' eti 47 o 71 C O p 14 ei
V V V Vnenoo r-N.Q- nn
— — r
41 41 +1 41 +I +1 41 41 +1 +1 •
A A gAa6aa,,,agn ao` m
UU u d yyxx
Figure GEO-1 (from Huang)
GEO-5
APPENDIX 1 - MAPS
5 Mile Pit March 2016
LEGEND
BOUNDARIES
Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Township: 7S Range: 95W PM: 6th
Colorado River 0 200' 400' 600'
State or territorial ----------
County or equivalent -- -- -- --
Incorporated city or equivalent — —
Federally administered area — — — — —
AND RELATED
BUILDINGS STRUCTURES
Building
Fence
Gas and Water Wells •
BASELINE CONTOURS
Index
Approximate of indefinite
Intermediate
Approximate of indefinite
Supplementary
LAND SURVEYS
Public Land Survey System
Range or Township line
Range or Township labels R1 E T2N
Section line
Section numbers 1-36
Mining claim or property boundary —
BASELINE MINES AND CAVES
Gravel, sand, clay, or borrow pit x
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES
Highway
Light duty road, paved
Light duty road, gravel
Unimproved road _ _
Trail - -
Road block, berm, or barrier
Gate on road
Cattle crossing guard
Railroad IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
RIVERS, LAKES, SHORELINES, AND CANALS
Perennial stream/ditch �-------__ -----
Perennial river / -
Intermittent stream/ditch / —
Perennial lake/pond CliD
Intermittent lake/pond / -
Flood Plain — ---
VEGETATION
Soils — — 3
Rangeland
WETLANDS (USFWS National Wetland Inventory)
Freshwater Emergent * *
TRANSMISSION LINES AND PIPELINES
Power transmission line; pole; tower 0 0 0
Power transmission line, buried
Telephone/data line, above ground G-----0-----0
Telephone/data line, buried ----------
Pipeline (non -water), above ground 0— — -e- — —is
Pipeline (non -water), buried — —
MINING FEATURES
DRMS Permit Boundary
200' Offset of DRMS Permit Boundary
I
_.--- , nco.-:\- \
/ _ c\,2,00 - e
...-- \., \ \ cc\e/-7
1 0� \ / �
/ \
/ (6/ati \
1/
• o
I
l
/
/2
•
�
T
Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Township: 7S Range: 95W PM: 6th
Colorado River 0 200' 400' 600'
1":200'
\
1'
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, Co USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
lii
•
I
I --
r—
•
1
FENCE OWNED BY 5 MILE RANCH AND UP RAILROAD
NON -SHADED AREAS ARE RANGELAND VEGETATION
POWERLINE AND EASEMENT OWNED BY XCEL ENERGY
•
•
•
/
.
•
7
7
7
Map C-1 - Baseline Conditions
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
Mine Entry
State: Colorado
Section: 28&33
Watershed:
Map Scale:
Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Township: 7S Range: 95W PM: 6th
Colorado River 0 200' 400' 600'
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 MileWUtoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, Co USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
POWERLINE AND EASEMENT OWNED BY XCEL ENERGY
LEGEND
BOUNDARIES
\
State or territorial ----------
County or equivalent ---------
Incorporated city or equivalent – –
Federally administered area — — — — — —
BUILDINGS AND RELATED STRUCTURES
Building
Fence O o 0 0
Gas and Water Wells •
BASELINE CONTOURS
Index
Approximate of indefinite
Intermediate
Approximate of indefinite
Supplementary
\
1
LAND SURVEYS
Public Land Survey System
Range or Township line
Range or Township labels R1 E T2N
Section line
Section numbers 1-36
Mining claim or property boundary
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES
Highway
Light duty road, paved
Light duty road, gravel
Unimproved road =
Trail - -
Road block, berm, or barrier
Gate on road
Cattle crossing guard
Railroad IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
RIVERS, LAKES, SHORELINES, AND CANALS
Perennial stream/ditch --\ —
Perennial river
Intermittent stream/ditch
/ —
Perennial lake/pond
Intermittent lake/pond / -
1
Elevated flume,
aqueduct, or conduit o o o o 0
Drainage Basin
Flood Plain ---
VEGETATION
Rangeland
WETLANDS
Delineated
TRANSMISSION LINES AND PIPELINES
Power transmission line; pole; tower 0 0 0
Power transmission line, buried
Telephone/data line, above ground G-----0-----0
Telephone/data line, buried ----------
Pipeline (non -water), above ground 0— — -e- - -0
Pipeline (non -water), buried — —
MINING FEATURES
DRMS Permit Boundary
Fixed Structures
Mobile Structures =7 C.
Mining Phases
Berm/windrow
POST -MINING CONTOURS
Index
Intermediate
J
/017/7
A
0
0
°N
\
i
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
\
1
_1
°N
0
r
0
r� I
----------------
0
Map C-2 - Mine Plan
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
\
i
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
\
_1
0
r
0
r� I
----------------
0
Map C-2 - Mine Plan
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
Mine Entry
State: Colorado
Section: 28&33
Watershed:
Map Scale:
Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Township: 7S Range: 95W PM: 6th
Colorado River 0 200' 400' 600'
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
1,7
'
LEGEND
CROSS SECTIONS
Baseline Topography
Mining Extents
Reclaimed Topography
Permit Boundary
Water Level
A
5020'
5000'
4980'
3H:1V UPPER RECLAIMED SLOPES
WATER LEVEL: 4989'
1.5H:1V MINING SLOPES
5020'
5000'
4980'
4960' 4960'
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N • CO CO O N d- CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO CO O N • CO CO O N • CO CO O N • CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N co oo O N co oo O N co oo O N co o0 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N co oo O N co 00
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
O O O O O NNNNN Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) Lt) LC) Ln Ln LC) CO CO CO CO CO N- N- N- ti ti o0 CO CO CO CO 6) CA CA CA 6) 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N Cr) Cr) Cr) CO CO 7r in in in in in C9 C9 C9 C9 CD N N N N ti CO CO CO CO CO 0) 0) 0) 0) CA 0 0 0 0 0
NNNNNNNNNN
B
5020'
5000'
4980'
4960'
1.5H:1V MINING SLOPES
WATER LEVEL: 4989'
3H:1V UPPER RECLAIMED SLOPES
WATER LEVEL: 4989'
B'
5020'
5000'
4980'
4960'
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N CO CO O N CO 00 O N CC:) CO O N Cfl CO O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N CC:) CO O N Cfl CO O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N C9 CO O N 7r C9 CO O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N 7r C9 CO O N CO 00 O N CO 00 O N C9 CO O N 7r C9 CO O N
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
O O O O O N— N— x— x— N— N N N N N CO M M CO CO Ln Ln Ln 1.0 1.0 CO CO CO C9 CO ti ti ti ti ti 00 00 CO CO CO C5) C5) C5) C5) C5) O O O O O N— N— N— N— N— N N N N N CO Cr) Cr) CO CO In LO LCA LC) LO CO CO CO CO CO N- N- ti ti ti CO 00 00 CO CO C5) C5) CD
Map C-3 Cross Sections
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction. Inc.
Mine Entry Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
State: Colorado County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Section: 28&33 Township: 7S
Watershed: Colorado River
Map Scale: 1": 500'
0
Range: 95W PM: 6th
500'
1000'
1500'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Imagery Source: Google
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld
Checked by: ----
Approved by: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160223.dwg
Date: 10/05/15
Date: ----
Date: ----
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
MINING PLAN
RECLAMATION PLAN
Notes:
Reclaimed slopes are 3H:1V down to 10' below the water level;
2H:1 V the remainder.
1.00ft. Freeboard
36"
10.00 ft.
. Dell of flow
J
12"
Trapezoidal Channe
Equal Side Slopes
Channel Lining: 36 inch Rock Rip -Rap
Riprap Size Gradation (36" Riprap)
Typical Stone Dimension
Percent Smaller
Layer Thickness
54"
100
36"
42-30"
75
18"
0
Bedding
3" sieve
100-90
12"
3/4" sieve
90-20
12"
#4 sieve
20-0
#200 sieve
3-0
LEGEND
BOUNDARIES
\
State or territorial ----------
County or equivalent ---------
Incorporated city or equivalent – –
— — — — — —
Federally administered area
BUILDINGS AND RELATED STRUCTURES
Building
Fence 0 0 0 0
Gas and Water Wells •
BASELINE CONTOURS
Index
Approximate of indefinite
Intermediate
Approximate of indefinite
Supplementary
\
1
LAND SURVEYS
Public Land Survey System
Range or Township line
Range or Township labels R1 E T2N
Section line —
Section numbers 1-36
Mining claim or property boundary — —
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES
Highway
Light duty road, paved
Light duty road, gravel
Unimproved road _ _
Trail - -
Road block, berm, or barrier
Gate on road
Cattle crossing guard
Railroad IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
RIVERS, LAKES, SHORELINES, AND CANALS
Perennial stream/ditch _--\ _–
Perennial river
Intermittent stream/ditch
/ —
Perennial lake/pond
Intermittent lake/pond / -
r
Elevated flume,
aqueduct, or conduit o 0 0 0 0
Flood Plain
VEGETATION
Rangeland
WETLANDS
Delineated
TRANSMISSION LINES AND PIPELINES
Power transmission line; pole; tower 0 0 0
Power transmission line, buried
Telephone/data line, above ground G-----0-----0
Telephone/data line, buried ----------
Pipeline (non -water), above ground 0— — –e– — -0
Pipeline (non -water), buried — —
MINING FEATURES
DRMS Permit Boundary
POST -RECLAMATION CONTOURS
Index
Intermediate
/
e
e O
vrva c\
/ ra�
7
0
,9076,0
O
°N
\
i
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
\
1
°N
r
0
/
/
7
7
Map F-1 Reclamation Plan
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
\
i
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
\
_1
r
0
/
/
7
7
Map F-1 Reclamation Plan
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
Mine Entry
State: Colorado
Section: 28&33
Watershed:
Map Scale:
Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Township: 7S Range: 95W PM: 6th
Colorado River 0 200' 400' 600'
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
•
-411
LEGEND
BOUNDARIES
\
State or territorial ----------
County or equivalent ---------
Incorporated city or equivalent – –
— — — — — —
Federally administered area
BUILDINGS AND RELATED STRUCTURES
Building
Fence 0 0 0 0
Gas and Water Wells •
BASELINE CONTOURS
Index
Approximate of indefinite
Intermediate
Approximate of indefinite
Supplementary
\
1
LAND SURVEYS
Public Land Survey System
Range or Township line
Range or Township labels R1 E T2N
Section line —
Section numbers 1-36
Mining claim or property boundary — —
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES
Highway
Light duty road, paved
Light duty road, gravel
Unimproved road _ _
Trail - -
Road block, berm, or barrier
Gate on road
Cattle crossing guard
Railroad IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
RIVERS, LAKES, SHORELINES, AND CANALS
Perennial stream/ditch _--\ _–
Perennial river
Intermittent stream/ditch
/ —
Perennial lake/pond
Intermittent lake/pond / -
r
Elevated flume,
aqueduct, or conduit o 0 0 0 0
Flood Plain
VEGETATION
Rangeland
WETLANDS
Delineated
TRANSMISSION LINES AND PIPELINES
Power transmission line; pole; tower 0 0 0
Power transmission line, buried
Telephone/data line, above ground G-----0-----0
Telephone/data line, buried ----------
Pipeline (non -water), above ground 0— — –e– — -0
Pipeline (non -water), buried — —
MINING FEATURES
DRMS Permit Boundary
POST -RECLAMATION CONTOURS
Index
Intermediate
/
7
e
e Ova c\
/ vrrao
/
/
0
,9076,
0
O
10/
17/
Jam/ g
°N
\
i
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
\
1
_1
°N
r
0
7
7
Map F-2 Reclamation Plan
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
\
i
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
\
_1
r
0
7
7
Map F-2 Reclamation Plan
5 Mile Pit
Elam Construction, Inc.
Mine Entry
State: Colorado
Section: 28&33
Watershed:
Map Scale:
Location: Latitude: 39.400648° Longitude: -108.105252°
County: Garfield Nearest Town: Parachute (3.9 miles)
Township: 7S Range: 95W PM: 6th
Colorado River 0 200' 400' 600'
1":200'
Map Georeferencing Information: Datum: NAD83 Projection: Colorado State Plane Central
Survey Source: Google Survey Date: ----
Imagery Source: Google Imagery Date: 06/01/14
Drawn by: Ben Langenfeld Date: 10/05/15
Checked by: ---- Date: ----
Approved by: ---- Date: ----
File Name: D:\Dropbox\Elam\5 Mile\AutoCAD\5 Mile 160901.dwg
Greg Lewicki And Associates
11541 Warrington Court Phone (303)-346-5196
Parker, CO USA 80138 E -Mail - info@lewicki.biz
•
-411