LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS - Garfield County, … Part 7 Rules Regulating Railroads, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and ... Land Suitability Analysis . 1

LAND SUITABIL ITY ANALYSIS

RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO

O W N E R / A P P L I C A N T :

C A R B O N D A L E I N V E S T M E N T S , L L C

7 9 9 9 H W Y 8 2

C A R B O N D A L E C O 8 1 6 2 3

9 7 0 - 4 5 6 - 5 3 2 5

C O N S U L T A N T :

8 1 4 0 P A R T N E R S , L L C

P O B O X 0 4 2 6

E A G L E , C O 8 1 6 3 1

J A N U A R Y 1 4 , 2 0 1 1

Land Suitability Analysis River Edge Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado

2

L A N D S U I TA B I L I T Y A N A LY S I S

RIVER EDGE COLORADO GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I . INTRODUCTION .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. BASIS .................................................................................................... 4

B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ........................................................ 4

C. REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 4

D. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 4

I I . PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. PROJECT LOCATION ........................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

I I I . LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SITE ......................................................................... 5

B. ACCESS TO ADJOINING ROADWAYS ........................................................ 6

C. EASEMENTS .......................................................................................... 7

D. TOPOGRAPHY AND SLOPE ...................................................................... 8

E. NATURAL FEATURES ............................................................................... 8

F. DRAINAGE FEATURES ............................................................................. 9

G. WATER .................................................................................................. 9

1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND SOURCE ..................................................... 9

2. IRRIGATION WATER ................................................................................. 10

3. IRRIGATION WATER RETURN FLOWS ....................................................... 10

H. FLOODPLAINS ...................................................................................... 11

I. SOILS .................................................................................................. 11

J. HAZARDS ............................................................................................ 12

1. EVAPORITE SINK HOLES ........................................................................... 12

2. STEEP TERRACE ESCARPMENTS ............................................................... 13

3. ACTIVE STREAM BANK EROSION ............................................................. 13

4. DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOODS ..................................................................... 13

5. EARTHQUAKES ......................................................................................... 14

6. RADIATION ............................................................................................... 14

K. NATURAL HABITAT ............................................................................... 15


3

1. VEGETATIVE COVER ................................................................................. 15

2. HABITAT AREAS AND GENERAL WILDLIFE USE ........................................ 16

3. SPECIFIC SPECIES OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE ........................................... 18

L. RESOURCE AREAS ................................................................................ 20

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: VICINITY MAP AND PROJECT SITE LOCATION


4

I . INTRODUCTION

A. BASIS

This Land Suitability Analysis ("Analysis") has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review ("Rezoning") and Subdivision Review ("Preliminary Plan") for the proposed River Edge Colorado ("Project", "REC", "REC PUD", or "development") in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 ("ULUR"), as amended. This Analysis specifically addresses the standards of Section 4-502.D as required by Section 5-501.G.8 and 6-301.B.5.c of the ULUR. The Analysis is supported by other referenced documents submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications including the River Edge Colorado PUD (Rezoning) and Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Drawing Package ("Drawing Package"). For a complete understanding of this Analysis and its findings, this Analysis should be reviewed in conjunction with the other materials submitted as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications.

B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

This Analysis supports the review of the Project. The intent of this Analysis is to provide Garfield County with an understanding of the existing land and development conditions and constraints associated with the Project Site (as herein after defined) that should be considered in the design of the Project. The scope of this Analysis is limited to the land suitability analysis components outlined in Section 4-502.D of the ULUR.

C. REFERENCES

As stated in Section I.A of this Analysis, this Analysis relies upon several documents that were submitted concurrently with this Analysis as part of the REC rezoning and preliminary plan applications. The associated documents include the following:

Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package (See also Data Sources)

Water Supply Report, 8140 Partners, LLC, January 14, 2011

Impact Analysis, 8140 Partners, LLC, January 14, 2011

D. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

The information presented in Section III of this Analysis identifies the access to the site, access to adjoining roadways, easements, topography and slope, natural features, drainage features, water, floodplain, soils, hazards, natural habitat and resource areas. These features and conditions were used as a basis for planning and laying out the Project. The Impact Analysis assess the relationship of the Project to these features and conditions, while a variety of design reports address the specific issues resulting or influencing the preliminary design of the Project and associated facilities and infrastructure.


5

I I . PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located along State Highway 82 ("SH 82") between the City of Glenwood Springs and Town of Carbondale near the junction of County Road 110/113 ("CR 113") and SH 82. The property is located almost entirely west of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority ("RFTA") right-of-way and east of the Roaring Fork River and the Roaring Fork Conservancy ("RFC") Conservation Easement (i.e., Grant of Conservation Easement dated February 3, 2000, recorded at Reception Number 559036 and survey map, recorded December 24th, 2008, recorded at Reception Number 760571 in the real property records of Garfield County, Colorado). The Project straddles Cattle Creek which is also located within the RFC Conservation Easement. A vicinity map is provided as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A1. The Project covers approximately 160 acres ("Project Site") as shown and described on the Project Site drawing [Exhibit 2(a-d), Appendix A1]. The Project is proposed by Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI").

I I I . LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

This section of the Analysis details the existing conditions as identified in Section 4-502.D of the ULUR. The Analysis is ordered in accordance with Section 4-502.D of the ULUR. The land suitability information referenced by the following sections is, where appropriate, depicted on Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package.

A. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SITE

The Project Site takes access from SH 82, but does not directly adjoin the highway except for Tract AY which is within a RFTA open space easement. Access is provided across the RFTA right-of-way which abuts the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") right-of-way directly.

A State Highway Access Permit will be required to take access to SH 82 at CR 113. The access will also require a crossing of the RFTA right-of-way immediately west of SH 82. All permitting will be done via the State and RFTA process at time of final plat. The Level III Traffic Study will be prepared prior to final plat and needs to include the standard Level 3 Traffic Study documentation and recommendations for the entire intersection, including the east half of the intersection. The intersection design may include short term recommendations if the final intersection layout is not appropriate to construct at until sometime after the Project begins or if some improvements are not the responsibility of CI. Addressing CR 113 will require additional coordination between CI, the County, and CDOT as the design progresses.

The RFTA right-of-way crossing required by the entry road at CR 113 and SH 82 is covered by an Easement Grant providing at-grade access to the Project Site. The easement for access to the Project Site at this location was granted by RFRHA (now RFTA) in Book 1142 at Page 963 (amended Book 1217 at Page 588) in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder (See Appendix H of the Impact Report). Several other access and utility agreements and licenses are also noted on the ALTA (Series V01) and Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Plan (Series EC01) of the Drawing Package.


6

These licenses are not proposed for use at this time, but are also granted to adjacent properties and may support future development adjacent to the Project Site.

The access is proposed as a private access. No through traffic is currently provided for by the REC PUD and no public uses are proposed within the REC PUD. As such, no public need exists for access to or through the development and public ownership and maintenance of the roads with in the development are not warranted. In the event, the private roads are converted to public access, a public entity meeting the requirements of Part 7 Rules Regulating Railroads, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and Rail Crossings of 4 Code of Colorado Regulations ("CCR") 723-7 ("PUC Rules") administered by the PUC would be required to take over control of the crossing and comply with any other applicable laws. The private access will be required to be designed and constructed to RFTA standards as a future at-grade rail crossing.

Emergency Vehicle Access ("EVA") agreements are in place provides for construction of a 20 foot EVA across the property to a point along SH 82 as is convenient for the development of the adjacent property.

Access to the site is generally limited to the locations specified unless new provisions are made for access. Project analysis must consider the design of these locations. Development may be limited by the ability of these access locations to meet Project demands.

B. ACCESS TO ADJOINING ROADWAYS

Exhibit 1 in Appendix B shows the existing road network in the vicinity of the Project and proposed access point.

The Project will likely take access from SH 82, a State Highway, at CR 113. The current access to the site exists at this point. SH 82 is a median divided rural highway with two lanes in each direction. Auxiliary turn lanes exist at full movement intersections as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes. The speed limit along SH 82 in the vicinity of the Project varies from 55 to 65 miles per hour. SH 82 is classified as an Expressway, Category E‐X by CDOT. According to the State of Colorado Access Code, direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements. CR 113 intersects CR 110 and Frontage Road prior to intersecting SH 82 on the east side of SH 82. Commercial uses exist along CR 110 and Frontage Road. The intersection of SH 82 and CR 113 is an unsignalized full movement access.

Two additional access points to SH 82 of importance to the Project, although not utilized by the Project, are located at Mirand Road and Spring Valley Road (CR 114/154), both located north of the Project Site. The closest major access to SH 82 south of the Project Site occurs at Diamond A Ranch Road at Aspen Glen, nearly two miles south of the Project Site.

The intersection of CR 114/154 and SH 82 is a full movement signalized intersection with designated left turn lanes. On the west side of the intersection is a small park–n‐ride lot for the transit stop that is located at the intersection. East of the intersection are industrial and commercial uses. Marand Road is located near the northern tip of the


7

Project Site and is a local 2 lane access roadway on the east side of SH 82, providing access to industrial and commercial uses. Across SH 82 from Marand Road access exists to a former restaurant site which is currently vacant. The access is unsignalized and full movement.

SH 82 is one of two north-south connections between CR 114/154 and Carbondale. The other north-south connection is CR 109. Only one east-west connection across the Roaring Fork River is provided between CR 154 and Carbondale (SH 133). This connection occurs on private roads through Aspen Glen along Golden Bear Drive, Midland Loop, Bald Eagle Way, and Diamond A Ranch Road. CR 109 serves the areas west of the Roaring Fork River between these points and SH 82 serves properties east of the Roaring Fork River.

The RFC Conservation Easement located immediately west of the Project Site allows a bridge connection across the Roaring Fork River near the northern most end of the easement. Currently, all roads north and west of the Project that could feasibly connect to connect to REC facilities are private roads.

Access to the site is generally limited to the locations specified unless new provisions are made for access. Project analysis must consider the design of these locations. Development may be limited by the ability of these access locations to meet Project demands. Accommodations for access to the adjacent properties should be considered by the development plan.

C. EASEMENTS

All recorded easements are identified on the ALTA (Series V01) and Existing Conditions and Land Suitability Plan (Series EC01) of the Drawing Package. Easements of significance, other than the RFTA access easements discussed in parts A and B of this Section above, include

The Glenwood Ditch Easement (Book 1292, Page 61). The Glenwood Ditch currently diverts water from the Roaring Fork River, south of the Aspen Glen development, to be used for land irrigation. The ditch is piped and enters the Project Site along the southeastern edge of the Project Site paralleling the RFTA Right-of-Way until it reaches Cattle Creek. From that point, it traverses the Project Site in a northwesterly direction and exits the Project Site prior to discharging back to the Roaring Fork River.

The RFTA Open Space Easement (Book 1143, Page 593, as amended Book 1217, Page 593). The 50' open space easement about the RFTA Right-of-Way, which forms the east edge of the Project Site. The open space easement is a mitigation buffer for activities including rail and recreational trail uses within the right-of-way. It requires the placement of landscaping and berms within the area to limit impacts to RFTA activities and protect RFTA's ability to utilize their right-of-way.


8

The RFC Conservation Easement (Book 1171, Page 929). The RFC Conservation Easement, while technically forming the western edge of the Project Site and providing a protective buffer along Cattle Creek, has conditions and restrictions concerning construction activities and landscaping that extend onto the Project Site.

An access easement (Book 1217, Page 610) to a property located west of the Project Site. The easement provides access through the Project Site across all roads to a property located west of the western most edge of the Project Site.

Easement conditions must be included or integrated into any development plan. Where the conditions associated with an easement cannot be met, the easement must be modified, as appropriate.

D. TOPOGRAPHY AND SLOPE

The existing topography in the area is shown by the contour lines and steep slopes by shading on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package. These contours represent the post-grading contours associated with grading activities conducted by Bair Chase in 2005 as part of the Sanders Ranch PUD. As discussed in the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J of the Impact Report), the proposed 160 acre development area is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The terraces have an average down-valley slope of less than one percent. Steep escarpments separate the original terrace levels. These escarpments typically have slopes of up to 60 percent. The escarpments between some terrace levels were obliterated during previous grading.

The current topography is significantly modified due to past grading, and nearly 80 years of agricultural activities even before the most recent development activities.

E. NATURAL FEATURES

The 160 acre Project Site is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River. Steep escarpments exist along the western edge of the Project Site and to a lesser extent along portions of Cattle Creek and generally form the boundary between the RFC Conservation Easement and the Project Site.

Wetlands exist along both Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Wetlands do not generally extend off the RFC Conservation Easement onto the Project Site except in very small pockets at the southern end of the site and along portions of Cattle Creek. No wetlands are present on the upper or mid-level terraces within the Project Site.

Few other natural features exist on the Project Site. During the past 80 years or so, this site was used as a cattle ranch, and the broad, flat terraces were irrigated pastureland. During the summer of 2005, the Project Site was graded for the Sanders Ranch PUD. Midway through grading, the project was terminated, which left the majority of the Project Site with a cobbly surface. Topsoil was salvaged by this early grading process and


9

stored in large piles on the property. The Existing Condition and Land Suitability Map, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package show the areas of disturbance, soil stockpiles, and vegetative cover on the Project Site.

The Project design should consider the pre-grading site conditions and whether terrace conditions can or should be restored to some degree.

F. DRAINAGE FEATURES

The Roaring Fork River flows from the south to north just west of the Project Site through the RFC Conservation Easement. The Roaring Fork River is a large perennial river with a very large drainage basin to the south. The 160 acre Project Site is located mostly on nearly level river terraces that stand between about 50 to 80 feet above the Roaring Fork River.

Cattle Creek crosses through the Project Site from east to west and roughly divides the property in half. Cattle Creek is a moderate sized perennial stream with a large drainage basin to the east. Cattle Creek joins the Roaring Fork River about mid-way along the western edge of the Project Site.

Small alluvial fans are present on the terrace surfaces in the eastern part of Project Site. The upper parts of all of these fans have been removed by grading for Highway 82 and development to the east of the highway. The fans developed at the mouths of small drainage basins on the eastern side of the Roaring Fork River Valley. These basins support ephemeral streams that only flow following heavy rainfall and snowmelt.

Lakes or ponds were excavated on the Project Site as golf features as part of the proposed Sanders Ranch PUD but never completed, and do not hold water.

The site drainage has been disrupted. Careful consideration of impacts to major drainage should be considered in Project design and layout.

G. WATER

The following is drawn from the letter report prepared by Water Resources Engineer Michael J. Erion, P.E. of Resources Engineering, Inc. [Appendix B of the Water Supply Report ("Resources Engineering Report")] which presents the water rights and water supply plan for the Project. Water appears to be available to support up to 1200 EQRs worth of development and irrigation of 260 acres.

1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND SOURCE

As documented in the Resources Engineering Report, the legal water supply for the potable water system is based on the water court decrees in Case No. 01CW187, 07CW164 (pending) and 08CW198 (pending). In Case No. 01 CW187, a legal water supply for 349.55 EQR's and 3 acres of irrigation was adjudicated. The decree utilizes 62.6 acre feet of Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") contract water for diversion at the RFWSD Aspen Glen Well Nos. 1-7, Coryell Ranch Well Nos. 1-14, and the Coryell Ranch Roaring Fork Diversion. The pending decree in Case No. 07CW164 provides for an additional 850.45 EQR's


10

and 4 acres of irrigation. Points of diversion for include RFWSD at the Robertson Ditch, Posy Pump and Pipeline, RBC Well Field, and the RBC Roaring Fork Diversion. The pending decree in Case No. 08CW198 provides for the 349.55 EQRs and 3 acres of irrigation to be diverted at the additional points of diversion identified in Case No. 07CW164. River Edge Colorado has amended BWCD Contract No. 381 for a total of 75.4 acre feet as required for all three water court decrees. The current Project demands 375 of the 1200 EQRs adjudicated or in pending decrees.

The potable water supply could be provided by the RFWSD alluvial wells located in the Aspen Glen and Coryell Ranch subdivision if the Project is served by the RFWSD, and surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River using the Robertson Ditch Rose Ranch Enlargement, Posy Pump and Pipeline (Iron Bridge Subdivision), or the RBC Roaring Fork Diversion (River Edge Colorado). The RBC Roaring Fork Diversion (River Edge Colorado) would be utilized if the Project is served by an alternative system as described in the Water Supply Report. Resource Engineering, Inc. notes that the yield of the physical water supply from the RFWSD alluvial wells and from the Roaring Fork River are not affected by dry year hydrologic conditions.

2. IRRIGATION WATER

Also as documented in the Resources Engineering Report, the Glenwood Ditch is decreed for 50 cfs for irrigation uses and Staton Ditch is decreed for 5.18 cfs for irrigation uses. The water court Case No. W-2206 for the Unocal Sanders Ranch determined that the historic consumptive use is 439 acre feet on 260 irrigated acres of which the Project Site represents approximately 150 acres of the total irrigated areas. CI also holds reliable irrigation water rights in the Glenwood Ditch (12.23 c.f.s.), represented by 367 shares of capital stock in the Thompson Glen Irrigation Company, and in the Staton Ditch (4.69 c.f.s.).

The physical source of water will be from the Roaring Fork River via diversion into the Glenwood Ditch and from Cattle Creek via diversion into the Staton Ditch. Historically, the Glenwood Ditch has had a full water supply, even in critically dry years. The Project's buildout irrigation use is estimated at significantly less than the overall irrigation water available to the Project. Water delivery will utilize a raw water distribution system feed by the Glenwood Ditch and Cattle Creek.

3. IRRIGATION WATER RETURN FLOWS

The fields associated with the Project Site were flood irrigated when under production. Return flows entered Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River as evidenced by piping along the steep terrace escarpment (further discussed under Hazards, Section J) and the location of cottonwoods and other vegetation along the western edge of the Project Site.


11

H. FLOODPLAINS

The floodplains associated with both the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek generally do not extend onto the Project Site except along small portions of Cattle Creek. These areas should be avoided by development and encroachments should be generally limited to facilities that cannot avoid areas subject to flooding such as bridge structures and utility crossings. The floodplains are shown on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package.

I. SOILS

Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (HP Geotech) completed an assessment of soils and geologic conditions including the identification of geologic hazards for the REC PUD in November 2010. The following discussion concerning the soil conditions is summarized from the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix J of the Impact Report).

The main landforms at the Project Site related to the site's surficial materials include (1) post-glacial alluvial terraces along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, (2) Pinedale glacial outwash terraces along the Roaring Fork River and related alluvial terraces along Cattle Creek, and (3) coalescing alluvial fans. A small part of the Project Site is located on the post-glacial alluvial terraces and the remaining area sits on the Pinedale glacial outwash terraces. An alluvial fan overlays a small area near the southern end of the Project Site.

The topsoil was stripped from most of the Project Site and stockpiled in 2005 by Bair Chase in association with the Sanders Ranch PUD approved by Garfield County. The areas stripped of topsoil and stockpile sites are shown on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, Series EC01 in the Drawing Package. The previous grading consists of both cut and fill areas. The fill areas are mostly composed of coarse-grained terrace alluvium. The terrace topsoil and upper fine-grained deposits were separated during grading and were placed in the soil stockpiles. The character of the coarse- and fine-grained terrace alluvium is described in the Pinedale Terraces as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Study.

The post-glacial terraces are located as two terraces. The lower terrace stands about 5 feet above the river and the higher terrace stands about 13 feet above the river. The alluvium is described as a clast-supported deposit of silty sand with occasional bouldery, pebble and cobble gravel interbedded and often overlain by sandy silt and silty sand. Shallow groundwater is expected to be present in these areas. A small part of the southern part of the Project Site is located on the upper terrace. Elsewhere the Project Site is located on the higher Pinedale terraces.

The Pinedale outwash terraces along the Roaring Fork River and the associated Cattle Creek terraces occur in several levels that formed at different periods. Grading in 2005 removed all of the mid level terraces. The alluvium under the Pinedale terraces associated with the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek are a clast-supported deposit of rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders in a silty sand matrix. Pedogenetic soil profiles are well developed in the Pinedale terraces. This indicates these surfaces have been stable with respect to erosion and deposition for over about 5,000 years.


12

With respect to disturbed soils and revegetation, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) have noted that "soils have been stockpiled for upwards of 5 years and the soil microbial populations, nutrient levels, and mycorrhizal fungi populations will be highly altered." This could result in difficulty in reestablishing native vegetation.

Careful consideration of soil erosion and surface water control measures to control water infiltration and concentrated flows since the surficial materials are susceptible to piping. Also with respect to disturbed soils and revegetation, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services in Appendix A of the Reclamation Plan (Appendix U) have noted that they recommend that soil samples be sent to Colorado State University for nutrient analyses prior to the revegetation activities and appropriate treatments be undertaken as part of pre-development reclamation to enhance potential success of revegetation efforts. The most cost effective means of influencing mycorrhizal populations on large projects is to provide suitable soil conditions such as using soils with higher soil organic matter and avoiding heavy fertilization. The stockpiled topsoils on the property may or may not have adequate levels of organic matter and may also require enrichment.

J. HAZARDS

HP Geotech completed an assessment of geologic conditions including the identification of geologic hazards for the REC PUD in November 2010. The Geotechnical Engineering Study is included in Appendix J of the Impact Report. Five primary hazards affecting the Project Site were identified in the Geotechnical Engineering Study. These hazards include evaporite sink holes, steep terrace escarpments, active stream bank erosion, debris flows and floods, and earthquakes. The following key information and considerations are drawn from in the study. Important hazard areas are identified on Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, EC01 Series of the Drawing Package.

1. EVAPORITE SINK HOLES

HP Geotech notes that the near surface formation rock in the area is the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The evaporite between Carbondale and about 3 miles south of Glenwood Springs is part of the Roaring Fork diapir which coincides with the Grand Hogback monocline that marks the western limit of the Carbondale evaporite collapse center. The Carbondale evaporite collapse center is the western of two regional evaporite collapse centers present in the western Colorado evaporite region. As much as 4,000 feet of regional ground subsidence is believed to have occurred during the past 10 million years as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the region. HP Geotech notes that it is uncertain if the regional subsidence and evaporite deformation along the Roaring Fork diapir are still an active geomorphic process or if evaporite deformations have stopped. If still active, present deformations are likely occurring at rates similar to past long-term rates of between 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years.

HP Geotech identified nine general sinkhole areas in the field and on aerial photographs in and close to the Project Site. These locations are identified on the Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, EC01 Series of the Drawing


13

Package. Evaporite sinkholes in western Colorado are typically 10- to 50-foot diameter, circular depressions at the ground surface that result from upward caving of a soil rubble pipe to the ground surface. The soil rubble pipe is formed by subsurface erosion (piping) of near surface soils into subsurface voids. Sinkhole development is still an active geomorphic process. The Project Site is potentially subject to new sinkhole development or reactivation of existing sinkholes as is consistent with the regional geology. Appropriate investigations and mitigation will be necessary as part of design. Areas where sinkholes have been identified should be avoided by development where practical as opposed to being mitigated. Generally, mitigation methods are available to address the issues associated with these hazards.

2. STEEP TERRACE ESCARPMENTS

Steep terrace escarpments that commonly have slopes of about 60 percent and vary from 40 to 80 feet high are present along the Roaring Fork River and the lower reaches of Cattle Creek. These escarpments are potentially unstable and in some cases have been further destabilized due to piping associated with irrigation water from the previous agricultural activities on the Project Site. The escarpments are located along the western most property line and encroach into the RFC Conservation Easement. These areas can contribute to sediment production during rain and flood events or in association with excessive irrigation. As with identified sinkholes, these areas should generally be avoided by development and mitigation measures may be appropriate to implement as a means of reducing deformation.

3. ACTIVE STREAM BANK EROSION

Active stream bank erosion during high flood flow is occurring along the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek within the RFC Conservation Easement. In several areas, where these streams flow along the base of the steep terrace escarpments they can result in further destabilizing the steep terrace escarpments. These areas contribute to sediment production during rain and flood event and can result in more catastrophic inputs to the Roaring Fork River when failures occur. These areas all lie outside the boundaries of the Project Site. However, correction of these areas could be beneficial in stabilizing steep escarpments and reducing further deformation or failure.

4. DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOODS

HP Geotech noted that coalescing alluvial fans developed at the mouth of the numerous, small drainage basins on the east side of the Roaring Fork River Valley where the ephemeral streams in these basins discharge on terrace surfaces. Before construction of SH 82 and development to the east of the highway, the alluvial fan formed a continuous apron at the terrace-valley side transition. Most of the upper parts of the fans have been removed by grading for these facilities. Swell-consolidation tests show that the deposits do not have a high collapse potential (settlement after wetting under a constant load) and are moderately compressible under increased loading after wetting. This


14

indicates that the fans are geologically young landforms and are still potential sites of debris flow and flood deposition provided flows are able to reach these areas prior to deposition at SH 82 and the RFTA right-of-way benches. These areas should generally be avoided by development. However, if development is proposed, mitigation measures are generally available to address these hazards.

5. EARTHQUAKES

HP Geotech details the faults present in the vicinity of the Project. They conclude that geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Carbondale evaporite collapse center in the vicinity of the Project Site, but considering the nature of evaporite tectonics, these faults are not considered capable of generating large earthquakes.

The closest geologically young faults considered capable of generating large earthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift between 62 and 67 miles east of the Project Site. For firm rock sites with shear wave velocities of 2,500 fps in the upper 100 feet, the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Map indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10% exceedance probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.22g has a 2% exceedance probability for a 50 year exposure time at the Project Site. This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. HP again concludes that at these distances large earthquakes on the two closest geologically young fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the Project Site. HP concludes that earthquake risk is consistent with other areas of the Roaring Fork Valley. Limited risks to development are associated with earthquakes and mitigation measures are generally determined to be unnecessary.

6. RADIATION

The Project Site lies in Region 8 part of the Colorado Plateau Province and determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to have moderate radon potential (Map of Radon Zones: Colorado, EPA, September 1993, pg. iii-6). In accordance with this report, the Colorado Plateau Province in Region 8 has a band of high radon potential and a core of moderate radon potential. The band of high radon potential consists largely of: (1) the Uravan Mineral Belt, a uranium mining district, on the east; (2) the Uinta Basin, which contains uranium-bearing Tertiary rocks, on the north; and (3) Tertiary volcanic rocks, which have a high aeroradiometric signature, on the west. The moderate radon potential zone located in the interior part of the province, within which the Project Site is located, is underlain primarily by sedimentary rocks, including sandstone, limestone, and shale, which have a low aeroradiometric signature. County average screening indoor radon levels in the Colorado Plateau are mostly greater than 2 pCi/L (EPA). However, indoor radon levels within the area surrounding the Project Site are often below this level (EPA). In addition, the Geotechnical Engineering Study concludes "the project site is not located on geologic deposits that would be expected to have high concentration of radioactive minerals" (Geotechnical Engineering Study, pg. 18).


15

K. NATURAL HABITAT

Rocky Mountain Ecological Services prepared the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report ("Wildlife Report") dated December 2010 (Appendix K Impact Report). The following information is drawn from that report. The habitat areas and vegetation as depicted in the report are identified on Existing Conditions/Land Suitability Plan, EC01 Series of the Drawing Package.

1. VEGETATIVE COVER

As noted in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K of the Impact Report), the current state of the vegetative cover over much of the Project Site reflects several recent and historical impacts. While the area within the RFC Conservation Easement along the Roaring Fork River is still dominated by native woody species, much of the upland portion of the Project Site was cleared of native vegetation around 100 years ago to plant non–native hay grasses and/or provide for livestock and farming activities. The riparian vegetation along Cattle Creek itself is highly altered. The impacts from past year-round grazing practices are also still apparent as very little woody vegetation occurs along much of Cattle Creek on the upper benches. Any remaining pockets of native sagebrush shrublands also show little species diversity. The introduction of noxious weed species along the Roaring Fork River’s riparian corridor probably occurred during the agricultural operation of the area as well.

In 2005, the upland topsoils on Project Site were removed and salvaged with heavy equipment and most of the property was re-contoured and taken down to subsoil in preparation for development. Partway through these efforts, the development was abandon. The acres of newly denuded, very cobbly subsoils were colonized by ruderal, non-native weed species such as white sweetclover (Melilotis alba), flixweed (Descurainia Sophia) and Russian thistle (Salsola collina). Several noxious weeds also took residency, including kochia (Bassia sieversiana), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). The graded areas are essentially devoid of vegetation except for weeds. The Existing Condition and Land Suitability Map, Series EC01 of the Drawing Package show the areas of disturbance, soil stockpiles, and vegetative cover on the Project Site.

Vegetation outside the previously irrigated and graded areas is mostly sage, oak and other brush on the fans and terrace escarpments. Cottonwood trees, grass and willows are present on the lower terraces adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. As noted in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (Appendix K of the Impact Analysis), historically, the site was likely dominated by basin sagebrush flats (Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata), with patches of mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. pauciflora).

Overall, vegetative cover is of poor quality, limited diversity, and highly impacted by previous agricultural and development activities across most the


16

Project Site. Reclamation, revegetation, and noxious weed control measures could have some benefit to the habitat areas. However, as noted below, other constraints at the Project Site would still result in marginalized use of the habitat areas by most species.

2. HABITAT AREAS AND GENERAL WILDLIFE USE

The Project Site and adjacent lands are located in two habitat areas described by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. These include an Upland Habitat area and Riparian Habitat area. The Upland Habitat area constitutes a majority of the area being utilized by the Project. The Riparian Habitat area is generally located adjacent to the Project Site in the RFC Conservation Easement but does enter the Project Site in small areas. The following description is extracted from the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report (pgs. 8-9, 12-13, and 39).

The Upland Habitat, which constitutes a majority of the Project Site, is highly damaged from over 80 years of agricultural use and grading for the Bair Chase project in 2005. During this process, topsoils on the property were salvaged and stored in large stockpiles on the property. These topsoil stockpiles are currently dominated with a variety of ruderal early seral plant species. CI began treating noxious weeds in 2007, but some noxious weeds persist. CI has also began seeding topsoil stockpiles and graded areas with a temporary seed mix, consisting of native grasses and annual grasses to increase soil cover, reduce erosion, and help reclaim areas from weeds. The graded areas are essentially bare, and have very low aerial cover of plant species. Current vegetation cover on the graded areas is approximately 5 to 15%, with the densest vegetation being stands of cheatgrass and kochia. Moderate to large cobble-sized material dominate the surface soils stratum.

Rocky Mountain Ecological Services notes that wildlife use of the Upland Habitat is currently limited by vegetation types and cover. The most commonly observed species on the property is the Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans), which has colonies near the railroad grade. The presence of this squirrel likely attracts incidental foraging by great-horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red fox, gray fox, and coyote; however predator use of the property is likely incidental, as predators would likely prefer to hunt and forage on surrounding higher quality habitats. Bird use in the uplands is limited to a few species that can utilize the existing habitat conditions. This is generally limited to mourning dove, meadowlark and mountain bluebird. However, many other species may be observed within the uplands as they pass through the property to other more suitable habitats in the area.

The Riparian Habitat areas along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek, largely outside the Project Site, are dominated by mixed deciduous overstories, with understories dominated by noxious weeds and non-native agricultural grasses. Overstories are dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), river birch (Betula fontinalis), alder (Alnus incana) hawthorne (Cratagus rivularis & C. saligna), boxelder (Acer negundo), Rocky Mountain juniper (Sabina osteosperma), and


17

intermittent ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Many of the cottonwoods were established in association with the historic flood irrigation practices. As a result, many of the cottonwood trees in the area have become decadent, and are dying off due to the cessation of flood irrigation and use of more controlled forms of irrigation. Riparian understory vegetation is dominated by canarygrass (Phalaroides arundinacea), and agricultural cultivars such as orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromis inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense), and native shrubs such as skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica sbsp trilobata) and wild rose (Rosa woodsii). Noxious weeds include common tansy, field bindweed, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scotch thistle, plumeless thistle, common mullein (Verbascum thapsis), and Russian olive trees (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Cattle Creek supports canarygrass along its entire length. The general conditions of the understory in riparian systems along lower Cattle Creek and along the Roaring Fork River are very poor due to high levels of disturbance resulting in noxious weeds and a prevalence of aggressive, agricultural grasses and canarygrass.

During wetland delineations in July of 2010, the Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was identified in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The Project Site does not have any orchid populations or habitats.

Cattle Creek was heavily impacted in the past by grazing practices. The upper section of Cattle Creek crossing the Project Site is dominated by non-native species, including common tansy and canary reed-grass. The current habitat condition is poor with little habitat diversity. Most species observed in this area were upland bird species. Common riparian bird species are lacking due to the paucity of structural diversity of habitats. Some nighttime use by deer, elk, and other species is likely.

Lower Cattle Creek (near the confluence with the Roaring Fork) is of a better habitat quality and condition than the upper section. The lower section includes various shrub and tree plant species and more native vegetation. The understory vegetation is dominated by graminoid species, which somewhat diminishes the habitat conditions. More wildlife species utilize this area than the upper section due to widespread wetland habitats, and the structural diversity provided by taller shrubs (e.g., silver buffaloberry [Shepherdia argenteus]).

The Roaring Fork River supports diverse riparian woodlands and shrublands. Most of the trees along the river are somewhat decadent, and there is a general lack of younger trees along the river. A couple of the larger ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) trees along the river are currently providing nesting for a small to moderately sized Great Blue Heron rookery. One of the three rookery trees fell down into the Roaring Fork in the spring of 2009 due to high springtime flows and bank scour on the western bank. The riparian habitats along the river provide habitat for a number of bird species, as well as habitat for many mammal species.


18

Overall, the Upland Habitat areas that make up a majority f the site are in very poor condition and only provide for marginal utilization by animal species. Lower areas of the site adjacent to the RFC Conservation Easement could be utilized as buffers to conserve use of the Riparian Habitat areas along the Roaring Fork River. Cattle Creek utilization is highly impacted by the Elk fencing placed along SH 82 which has limited movement through the Project Site between the east and west sides of SH 82.

3. SPECIFIC SPECIES OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE

Species of key consideration and discussion in the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report include mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron, and Lewis's woodpecker. In addition, the Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was identified in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River as discussed previously.

No critical wildlife habitat areas were identified within the Project Site by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. However, five species subject to the critical wildlife habitat definition detailed in the Impact Report are known to utilize the Project Site. These species include the mule deer, elk, bald eagle, heron and Lewis's woodpecker.

According to the Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, the Project Site is within Elk Winter Range. Elk Severe Winter Range lies east of SH 82 (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 35). The Project Site is also located between Mule Deer Winter Range located west of the Roaring Fork River and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range located east of SH 82, but the Project Site is not located within either of these ranges (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 17). As a result, none of the Project Site is classified as an Elk or Mule Deer habitat type considered to be critical.

The Project Site supports low-density year-round levels of mule deer. The adjacent areas within the RFC Conservation Easement near the Roaring Fork River which contain shrubby vegetation, would likely meet criteria as Mule Deer Winter Range (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 17). Deer do utilize the flat terraces despite the lack of quality vegetation, but there is definitely more deer within the RFC Conservation Easement. The use of Rio Grande Trail has likely deterred deer use of areas within 100 meters of the trail (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report pg. 17).

Elk primarily use the Project Site as a loafing area since the property only supports marginal foraging opportunities. The Project Site supports reasonable numbers of elk during the winter months. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services notes that during the past few winters, due to very marginal grazing opportunities, many of the elk likely moved to other areas for feeding, but reasonably high numbers of elk persist on the Project Site through the winter, likely utilizing the property as a loafing area during the daytime hours, or when snows covered foraging opportunities on other properties (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 35). The Rio Grande Trail was opened for


19

winter use during 2009. The trail has introduced daily walkers, dog walkers, and sometimes bicyclists and cross country skiers through the middle of this property. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail combined with the construction of the elk fence along SH-82 has noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg 35).

As previously noted, a heron rookery ("heronry") is present in the RFC Conservation Easement adjacent to the Project Site. Heron generally arrive in the valley in mid March. At this time, 2 ponderosa pine trees comprise the heronry (a third tree fell down in 2009 due to bank erosion on the Roaring Fork River), with the tree on the east bank of the Roaring Fork River having approximately 10 nests, and the tree on the western side of the river having 15 nests (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 41). This heronry is fairly productive given the limited size of area it occupies, when compared to the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (9 nests in 2008) and Woody Creek (15 nests in2008) (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 41). The heronry is located adjacent to the Project Site and meets the definition of critical habitat. The heronry has been located by a pair of Golden Eagles, who killed a majority of the young in 2010. This could lead to abandonment in future years, as has been the case in other locations in the region.

With respect to the bald eagle, the closest bald eagle nest site is located on the Aspen Glen subdivision. Nesting at the site has been successful for the past 5 years. The Wildlife Report finds that bald eagles primarily use the RFC Conservation Easement adjacent to the Project Site for roosting on trees near the river and hunting for fish. The Aspen Glen bald eagles are believed to be the only bald eagles utilizing the area (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 47). The bald eagle utilizes areas adjacent to the Project Site for roosting which is considered a component of the critical habitat.

Finally, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services notes that the Project Site and RFC Conservation Easement are home to the Lewis's Woodpecker. Lewis’s Woodpeckers are migratory, arriving in breeding and summer ranges in May and departing again in early to mid-September. Lewis’s Woodpeckers from the Project Site, likely migrate westward towards the lower Uncompahgre, Gunnison, and Colorado River valleys, but some birds may migrate as far south as northern Mexico. Their migration is slow and is diurnal. Important aspects of breeding habitat include an open canopy, a brushy understory offering ground cover, dead or downed woody material, available perches, and abundant insects. Three principal habitats are open ponderosa pine forest; open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood; and logged or burned pine forest (Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report, pg. 48). The Lewis's Woodpecker is considered by the local United State Forest Service ("USFS") as a sensitive species. The habitat available adjacent to the Project Site is not considered critical habitat pursuant to the applicable definition.


20

Overall, the wildlife influences at the site are important considerations but limited with respect to overall potential impacts to the species of importance. Providing open space buffers between development areas and RFC Conservation Easement could be beneficial to continued utilization of the RFC Conservation Easement by all species. Elk fencing along SH 82, the lack of forage, and use of the Rio Grande Trail has significantly reduced use of the Project Site by Elk and Mule Deer over the past several years. Upland Habitat areas which make up a majority of the Project Site are considered poor quality habitat for Elk and Mule Deer and generally only utilized as loafing areas. Buffer areas for heron should be considered along with other protective controls when developing the Project Site as outline in the Wildlife Report (pg. 50-53).

L. RESOURCE AREAS

Maps and records on file at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") were checked for any recorded historic and/or prehistoric sites in or immediately around the Project Site. There are no recorded sites inside the Project Site, or in the immediate vicinity. A majority of the Project Site was used for agricultural purposes for nearly 80 years and was regraded in 2005. As such, any resources that may have been present are likely to have been removed or significantly damaged beyond repair as part of these activities.

The barn associated with the old ranch was removed from the Project Site in 2005. The barn may have had important architectural attributes and been viewed, by some, as significant to the valley's character. However, no remnants exist today. At present, the only clearly identifiable potential historic resource located near the Project Site is a trestle carrying the RFTA trail over Cattle Creek within the RFTA right-of-way. Although the trestle is not listed as an historic resource by the SHPO in their list of rail and historic resources, the trestle clearly has several characteristics that are important and might meet the general standards for preservation. The resource is not located on the Project Site but can be viewed from the Project Site and SH 82.

APPENDIX A: VICINITY MAP AND PROJECT SITE LOCATION

App. A-1

12/01/10VICINITY MAP

Exhibit:

Date:

8140 Partners, LLC

Title:

Prepared by:

Owner/Developer:

Carbondale Investments, LLC7999 HWY 82Carbondale, CO 81623

Phone No:970.456.5325

App. A-2

msawyer

Typewritten Text

1

msawyer

Typewritten Text

1

msawyer

Typewritten Text

msawyer

Typewritten Text

msawyer

Rectangle

msawyer

Typewritten Text

PROJECT SITE

Exhibit:

Date:

8140 Partners, LLC

Title:

Prepared by:

Owner/Developer:


Phone No:970.456.5325

12/01/10

App. A-3

msawyer

Typewritten Text

2(a)

msawyer

Typewritten Text

msawyer

Typewritten Text

Exhibit:

Date:

8140 Partners, LLC

Title:

Prepared by:

Owner/Developer:


Phone No:970.456.5325

12/01/10

App. A-4

msawyer

Typewritten Text

2(b)

Exhibit:

Date:

8140 Partners, LLC

Title:

Prepared by:

Owner/Developer:


Phone No:970.456.5325

12/01/10

App. A-5

msawyer

Typewritten Text

2(c)

Exhibit:

Date:

8140 Partners, LLC

Title:

Prepared by:

Owner/Developer:


Phone No:970.456.5325

12/01/10

App. A-6

msawyer

Typewritten Text

2(d)


APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MAP

App. B-1

Exhibit:

Date:

8140 Partners, LLC

Title:

Prepared by:

Owner/Developer:


Phone No:970.456.5325

12/01/10

App. B-2

msawyer

Typewritten Text

1

Documents

LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS - Garfield County, … Part 7 Rules Regulating Railroads, Rail Fixed Guideways, Transportation by Rail, and ... Land Suitability Analysis . 1