Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR22-006 Edwards RiverPark PUD Approval with Exhibits Eagle County, CO 202200947 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 01/19/2022 Regina O'Brien 01:18:09 PM Pgs: 32 REC: $0.00 DOC: $0.00 Commissioner Schen moved adoption of the following Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - 006 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF EAGLE COUNTY AND APPROVAL OF THE SKETCH PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE EDWARDS RIVERPARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO. ZC-9029 FILE NO. PDSP-9050 WHEREAS, on or about July 1, 2019, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, accepted for filing applications submitted by Sierra Trail Investments, LLC, (hereinafter "Applicant") for approval of a an application for an amendment to the official zone district map of Eagle County (the "Zone Change"), File No. ZC-9029; an application for a combined Sketch Plan and • Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development (the "Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD"), File No. PDSP-9050; and an application for approval of a 1041 Permit to construct major extensions of existing municipal and domestic water and wastewater treatment systems, File No. 1041-9030 (the "1041 Permit") for the development known as the Edwards RiverPark Planned Unit Development ("Edwards RiverPark PUD"), for the approximately 53.270-acre property located in Edwards, Colorado, and more particularly described at Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant requested approval of an application for the Zone Change to rezone the Property from the Resource and Rural Residential zone districts to the PUD zone district; and WHEREAS,the Applicant requested approval of the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD for the Edwards RiverPark PUD, which included, but was not limited to, the following elements: • Eagle County, CO 202201085 Regina O'Brien 01/21/2022 Pgs: 327 03:49:48 PM REC: $0.00 DOC: $0.00 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 Application • Housing-Total Units • 440 units Housing Plan-Workforce Units • 90 deed restricted rental units(81 price capped rental units and 9 resident occupied("RO")rental units) • 98 RO deed restricted for sale units • 82 RO deed restricted for sale or rental units (unit mix at the discretion of the developer) Housing-Free Market • 170 free market residential units Commercial Space • maximum of 11,500 square feet,including 2,500 square feet of dedicated space for a childcare facility, retail stores,and a public plaza Developer RETA • 1%RETA on sales of free-market units Wildlife Enhancement Fund • 0.02%RETA Wetland Setback • 50 feet throughout PUD • 15 feet in PA-6 • Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan,as • amended and Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan, as amended Open Space Acreage • 35.29 acres Off-Site Landscape Improvements • $250,000 of Landscape Improvements on Eagle River Preserve Conservation Easement • PA-1, PA-7,and PA-9 US Highway 6(Hwy 6) • Hwy 6 improvements including a roundabout at the Improvements Funded by the Lake Creek Road intersection, a right-in right-out Applicant access point,and widening Hwy 6 to 4-lanes as shown on the preliminary Hwy 6 Improvements drawings attached as Exhibit E,permitting,right-of-way dedication/acquisition,trail realignment,two transit stops w/pullout lanes,signage,and utility realignment 2 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Zone Change and the proposed Sketch and p p g P p Preliminary Plan for PUD was mailed to all owners of property adjacent to the proposed PUD and was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the County concerning the subject matter of the applications and setting forth the dates and times of meetings for consideration of the applications by the Eagle County Planning Commission (hereinafter the "Planning Commission") and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle (hereinafter the "Board") as required by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (hereinafter the "ECLURs") Section 5-210.E; and WHEREAS,at its public hearings held on March 18,2020;July 15,2020;August 5,2020; August 19, 2020; September 16, 2020; and October 7, 2020, the Eagle County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") considered the proposed Zone Change and the proposed Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD; associated plans,documents, and studies; and the statements and concerns of the Applicant, the Eagle County Community Development, Housing and Engineering staff, and other interested persons, including members of the public and adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS,on October 7,2020,the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Zone Change and recommended approval with conditions of the proposed Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD; and WHEREAS,at its public hearings held on December 8,2020;December 15,2020;January • 19, 2021; February 2, 2021; February 9, 2021; February 16, 2021; February 23, 2021, March 2, 2021; March 9, 2021; March 23, 2021; September 7, 2021; September 28, 2021; October 7, 2021; and October 26, 2021, the Board considered the proposed Zone Change and the proposed Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD; associated plans, documents, and studies; and the statements and concerns of the Applicant, the Eagle County Community Development, Housing and Engineering staff, other interested persons, including members of the public and adjacent property owners;and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, exhibits, study of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan, comments and recommendations of the Community Development Department, comments of public officials and agencies, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and comments from all other interested parties,the Board finds as follows: THAT,the application for a Zone Change for the Property complies with the standards in ECLUR Section 5-230.D - Standards for Zone Change, as set forth in the staff reports (defined below) and as outlined below: 3 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.a-c.] — The Board • finds that the Zone Change is in substantial conformance with the purposes, intents, goals, and policies of the 2005 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"),the 2017 Edwards Area Community Plan(the"EACP"), and all other applicable ancillary County adopted documents including the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines, and those pertaining to natural resource protection, and infrastructure management. As set forth in staffs reports dated December 8, 2020 and September 7, 2021, and staffs presentations and memos for the Edwards RiverPark PUD(collectively"staff reports"),the Zone Change meets a preponderance of master plan goals, policies, objectives, and implementation strategies, as well as Future Land Use Map("FLUM")designations and land uses. Specifically,with respect to the EACP, areas of conformance include: conformance with applicable general development goals, policies, and recommended strategies, such as the promotion of compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to the community core; conformance with applicable economic resources goals, policies, and recommended strategies, including ensuring that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses;conformance with applicable housing goals, policies, and recommended strategies as set forth in the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines (the "Housing Guidelines"); conformance with applicable infrastructure and service goals,policies,and recommended strategies, such as locating new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub; and conformance with applicable water resource and wildlife goals, policies, and recommended strategies. The Board further finds that the building heights are appropriate, and that architectural features provide a pedestrian . scale to the proposed community. The building heights support the EACP statement that,"While it is generally recommended that building heights be limited to four stories, there are locations where taller structures may be found to be compatible." The Board further finds that the Edwards RiverPark Affordable Housing Plan greatly exceeds the recommended mitigation set forth in the Housing Guidelines. Pursuant to the Housing Guidelines, the recommended affordable housing mitigation for the PUD was 110 units. The Edwards RiverPark Affordable Housing Plan provides a total of 270 deed restricted units: 90 deed restricted rental units (81 price-capped rental units and 9 RO rental units; 98 RO deed restricted for sale units, and 82 RO deed restricted for sale or rental units (unit mix at the discretion of the developer), resulting in a unit equivalent of 305.5 units under the Housing Guidelines. 2. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] - The Board finds that the Zone Change is compatible with the type, intensity,character,and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the Property. Dimensional limitations of the PUD will result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing or permissible uses surrounding the Property. The Board finds that the current zoning of the surrounding properties includes residential PUDs, commercial PUDs, 4 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 Residential Suburban Low Density, Resource, and Rural Residential. The FLUM designations for surrounding properties include Countryside Agricultural, Community Campus, Neighborhood Residential, and Open Space Natural. The proposed PUD is designated as "Mixed Use Commercial/Residential." The current zone district designations and FLUM for the surrounding properties are fairly synonymous, representing lower density residential, agricultural, open space, community uses and mixed use. The properties across HWY 6 are considered Mixed Use and Community Campus, which is also complementary to the Mix Use designation of the Property. 3. Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3.] -The Board finds that the Zone Change addresses a demonstrated community need through the provision of workforce housing and otherwise results in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed PUD, including, but not limited to, an Affordable Housing Plan that greatly exceeds the recommended mitigation set forth in the Housing Guidelines by providing a total of 270 deed restricted units for workforce housing; transportation efficiencies, including the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Hwy 6 and Lake Creek Road over the minimum required access improvement; preservation of lands through the granting of conservation easements on PA-1, PA-7, and PA-9 of the Edwards RiverPark PUD; inclusion of a 2,500 square foot dedicated space for a childcare facility; and a Wildlife Enhancement Fund. 4. Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4.] - The Board finds that circumstances exist that warrant a zone change to implement the vision of the adopted plan. The • Property was zoned Resource and Rural Residential prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the EACP. These two guiding documents are the result of an extensive evaluation of community needs, a balance of growth pressures, and broad community input through a public process. The EACP identifies the Property as a location for future development of a "Mixed Use Commercial/Residential" project, which is a more intense use than what is permitted with the Resource and Rural Residential zone districts. The Board finds that the designation in the FLUM of the EACP indicates a change of circumstances that warrants a zone change to implement the vision of the adopted plan. 5. Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5.] -The Board finds that the Property will be served by adequate roads,water, sewer, and other public use facilities. The Property has direct access from Hwy 6, a public right-of-way owned and maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation. As discussed under the standards for a PUD set forth below, the Applicant has offered and agreed to make infrastructure improvements to Hwy 6 as detailed in the preliminary Highway 6 Improvements drawings, attached as Exhibit E, to provide two points of ingress and egress and support the additional traffic generated by the development added onto the infrastructure. As set forth below, the Board reviewed the adequacy of the roads serving the PUD, 5 S DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 including the capacity of Hwy 6, and approved a variation from the ECLUR roadway • level of service standard for Hwy 6. The Property is within the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Sheriff's Department service districts. The Applicant has obtained a conditional capacity to serve letter for water and wastewater services for the Property from Upper Eagle Water Authority and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The Applicant and/or a metropolitan district formed for the PUD will construct,maintain, and repair all internal PUD roadways, sidewalks,paths, and trails for the PUD in accordance with the PUD Guide and ECLUR standards, or as varied by the Board. THAT, the Applicant filed an application for a consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD for the Property and the Board finds, pursuant to ECLUR Section 5-240.F.3.d., that because the application was a consolidated application, the proposed Preliminary Plan for PUD is deemed to conform to the approval given to the Sketch Plan for PUD; and THAT, the application for a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD for the Property complies with the standards in ECLUR Section 5-240.F.3.e. - Standards, as set forth in the staff report and as outlined below: 1. Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(1)] - The title to all land that is part of this PUD is owned or controlled by one (1) person/entity, Sierra Trail Investments, LLC. 2. Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(2)]—The uses that may be developed in the PUD are those . uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use, or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential,Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the Property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of the designated uses for a zone district may be authorized by the Board pursuant to ECLUR Section 5-240 F.3.f., and variations to designated uses were authorized by the Board as requested in the application for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD to allow the Applicant to obtain, among other things, desired design qualities to permit the integration of mixed uses and allow for greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings, and to allow the mixing of residential and non-residential uses, as provided in Section 5-240f.3.f.(a) of the ECLUR. See Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table attached hereto as Exhibit C for a list of variations approved for PUD uses. 3. Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD are those specified in ECLUR Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations," for the zone district designation in effect for the Property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations have been authorized by the Board pursuant to ECLUR Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations 6 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • Authorized, to allow the Applicant to obtain, among other things, desired design qualities. See Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table attached hereto as Exhibit C for a list of the variations to dimensional limitations. 4. Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(4)] -It has been demonstrated that, as varied and conditioned, off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD does comply with the standards of ECLUR Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in certain parking standards has been authorized as set forth in Section 7 of the PUD Guide because the Applicant has demonstrated that, based on similar developments and shared parking arrangements, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the PUD will be met and/or that based on the availability of transit, the actual needs of the PUD's residents, guests, and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. Alternative methods for providing efficient parking, such as mechanical and valet parking, have also been contemplated. See Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table attached hereto as Exhibit C. In addition, condition of approval 2, set forth below, was included to ensure shared parking arrangements and the parking proposed for each Planning Area are adequate for the actual needs of the PUD. 5. Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(5)] - The Applicant has demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the PUD does comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. • 6. Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(6)]—The Applicant has demonstrated that signs within the PUD will comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. 7. Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(7)] - The Applicant has demonstrated that the development proposed in the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools,police,and fire protection and emergency medical services. The Applicant has obtained a conditional capacity to serve letter for water and wastewater services for the Property from Upper Eagle Water Authority and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The Property is within the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Sheriff's Department service districts. The Applicant and/or a metropolitan district formed for the PUD will construct, maintain, and repair all internal PUD roadways, sidewalks,paths, and trails for the PUD in accordance with the PUD Guide and ECLUR standards, or as varied by the Board. The Board reviewed the adequacy of the roads serving the PUD, including the capacity of Hwy 6, and approved a variation from the ECLUR roadway level of service standard for Hwy 6 because traffic generated by the PUD will not exceed the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") 7 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 capacity of the Hwy 6 during the 20-year planning horizon, and because the public 110 infrastructure proposed by the Applicant achieves a greater efficiency of design and greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, while following the minimum design principles including improving safe efficient access, pathways, and principle access points for vehicles,pedestrians,and bicycles as set forth under Section 5-240.F.3.e.(8), Improvements, discussed below. 8. Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(8)] - The internal infrastructure of the PUD improvements complies with the standards applicable to the PUD, which are as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. However, the Board has approved variations from certain County standards relating to roads, sidewalks, recreational paths,parking stalls, and roadway level of service so that the development achieves a greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered development, compact forms of development, and greater sensitivity to environmental impacts. The Applicant is causing a roundabout to be constructed at the Hwy 6 and Lake Creek Road intersection. This public infrastructure facility will dramatically improve traffic congestion at the intersection for both the public and PUD and offset the reduced level of service on the Hwy 6 segment serving the PUD. In addition, traffic generated by the PUD will not exceed the CDOT capacity of Hwy 6 in the 20-year planning horizon. The following minimum principles were followed in the design of the development: (a) the circulation system was designed to provide safe, efficient access to all areas of the PUD; (b) internal pathway will be provided to form a logical, safe, and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas; (c)roadways will be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units; (d) principle • vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow,minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle traffic; and (e) adequate areas will be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. 9. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(9)] - The PUD is generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other lands, services,or infrastructure improvements that may be substantially impacted. 10. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(10)] - As set forth above, the PUD is in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan,the EACP,and all other applicable ancillary County adopted documents including the Housing Guidelines and those pertaining to natural resource protection and infrastructure management. 11.Phasing. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(11)] - The Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD includes a phasing plan for the development providing that public improvements shall 8 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A61526B-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • be constructed in the first phase of the development, as outlined in the PUD Guide. 12. Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(12)] - The Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD complies with the common recreation and open space standard with respect to (a) minimum area, by providing a minimum of 35.29 acres of common recreation and open space; (b) improvements required, as the common open space and recreational facilities are shown on the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD and will be constructed pursuant to the development schedule set forth in the phasing plan for the PUD; (c) the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD and the PUD Guide provide for the continuing use and maintenance of the common recreation and open space; and (d) a homeowners association and/or metropolitan district formed for the PUD will manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities, and shall provide for access and responsibility for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land.. 13.Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e.(13)] -The Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD considers the recommendations made by the applicable analyses documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, and the PUD Guide includes mitigation designed to protect wildlife, including a Wildlife Enhancement Fund, consisting of a 0.02% real estate transfer fee to be imposed by the Applicant and used in furtherance of wildlife . enhancement and other appropriate projects with a 25 mile radius from the Property; as well as other mitigation to address geologic hazards;and to protect stream,wetlands, and riparian areas through a Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan. THAT, pursuant to ECLUR Section 5-240.F.1.d., the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, and the Board finds that the application for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD also meets the requirements of ECLUR Section 5-280, Subdivision, as set forth in the staff report and as outlined below: 1. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. As set forth above, the PUD subdivision is in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the EACP, and other applicable ancillary County adopted documents, including the Housing Guidelines and those pertaining to natural resource protection, and infrastructure management. 2. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD subdivision complies with all of the standards of ECLUR Section 5-280, Subdivision and all other provisions of the ECLUR,including,but not limited to,the applicable standards of Article 3,Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards.Variations to the ECLUR have been authorized 9 i DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 by the Board pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized and pursuant to the • applicable standards of ECLUR Section 5-240. See the Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed PUD subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. 4. Suitability for Development. The Property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources, and natural or man- made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. 5. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. As set forth above, the proposed PUD subdivision is generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land, and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. 6. Adequate Facilities. As set forth above, the Applicant has demonstrated that the development proposed in the PUD subdivision will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection,and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools,police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT, the application for a Zone Change (Eagle County File No. ZC-9029), and as subsequently amended and revised, is hereby approved and the Property more particularly described at Exhibit A is hereby rezoned from the Resource and Rural Residential zone districts to the PUD zone district, and the official zone district map of Eagle County, Colorado shall be updated to reflect such change; THAT, subject to the conditions set forth below, the application for the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD for the Edwards RiverPark PUD, and as subsequently amended and revised, is hereby approved for the Property more particularly described at Exhibit A; and THAT,the approved Edwards RiverPark PUD Guide, dated January 18,2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and THAT, the approved Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table is attached hereto as Exhibit C; and 10 S DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • THAT, the approved PUD Agreement for the Edwards RiverPark PUD, dated January 18, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit D; and THAT, the preliminary Highway 6 Improvements drawings for the Edwards RiverPark PUD, are attached as Exhibit E and final Hwy 6 Improvements drawings must be submitted to the County with the application for the first Final Plat for the PUD; and THAT, this Resolution shall serve as an agreement binding the Edwards RiverPark Planned Unit Development to the following conditions: 1. To demonstrate that the PUD development is reasonably safe from flooding and not creating floodplain connectivity, a floodplain development permit is required for any development of a structure, as defined in the ECLUR,or uncovered porches,amphitheater, decks, or other similar structurally attached projection within 10 ft horizontally of the delineated 100-yr floodplain or 2 ft vertically of the Base Flood Elevation at any point along the structure. 2. Prior to the first building permit application for each Planning Area in the PUD, a comprehensive parking plan including a study by a qualified professional of the number and size of spaces, vehicles served, design, location, and functionality of the parking spaces, loading berths, delivery vehicle spaces, and accessible parking spaces must be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department. The standards of the al ECLUR must be followed unless a specific variation relating to parking was granted by the Board under this PUD approval. Valet and mechanical parking designs must contemplate servicing vehicles of a standard size and weight for the area. If the study identifies that the built or planned parking supply is inadequate, the Applicant/Owner shall be required to provide additional parking management strategies acceptable to the County Engineer, or provide additional parking to accommodate the projected parking demand prior to building permit issuance. The parking rate study shall be conducted at full or normal residential occupancy, and shall be coordinated with the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding timing and methodology. 3. All landscape plans submitted with applications for Final Plats of Planning Areas along Hwy 6 or building permits that contain landscaping within gas pipeline easements shall be reviewed and approved by Black Hills Energy prior to submission to Eagle County. 4. A comprehensive planting and stabilization plan for the landscape improvements to the Eagle River Preserve and a proposal for the connector trail alignment and design shall be provided to Eagle County Open Space and Eagle Valley Land Trust for review and approval prior to the first Final Plat application. The connection trail shall align with previously approved management plans for the Eagle River Preserve. Any major deviation 11 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 from the identified location may require approval from EVLT and the Vail ValleyIII Foundation. The plan shall include cost estimates of work proposed and shall be collateralized as public improvements within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the first Final Plat for the PUD. 5. An Ability to Serve Letter from the Upper Eagle River Water Authority and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District shall be provided within two years of the date of the resolution of approval for the PUD unless an extension is granted by the Authority/District. 6. Internal roadway designs including anticipated trips, access locations, design speeds, design criteria, and emergency vehicle accesses shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department at each Final Plat for the PUD that includes construction activities. 7. The necessary right-of-way for Hwy 6 widening and Lake Creek Road roundabout, as determined by CDOT, shall be dedicated to CDOT by the Applicant or developer or their assigns at the first Final Plat for the PUD. 8. The Applicant or developer shall obtain all final CDOT Access Permits, and the developer or the metropolitan district formed for the PUD shall obtain all final CDOT Utilities and Special Use Permits and the approval by Eagle County of proposed transit infrastructure prior to the first development permit for the PUD. All improvements associated with the CDOT Access Permit and Utilities and Special Use Permit, including but not limited to, Hwy 6 widening and the roundabout,a bus stop pull off lane to back of curb,and secondary . access shall be collateralized as public improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement associated with the first Final Plat for the PUD. All improvements shall be fully funded by the Applicant or developer and completed and accepted prior to issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy of the first building permit issued for the PUD. 9. All improvements associated with approved transit infrastructure,including but not limited to bus shelters and sidewalks, shall be collateralized as public improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement associated with the first Final Plat for the PUD. All improvements shall be fully funded by the Applicant or developer and completed and accepted prior to issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy of the first building permit issued for the PUD. 10. There shall be no development by the Applicant of stormwater infrastructure, with the exception of stormwater outfalls, in the 100-year floodplain,which includes the entirety of both the Zone AE and the approximate Zone A 100-year floodplains. If advantageous to the Applicant, it may choose to refine the 100-year floodplain by delineating it in 12 0 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 0 accordance with FEMA Regulations for a Zone A and in accordance with ECLUR Section 3-350.F. 11. The"Stormwater Treatment Appurtenances Operations and Maintenance"attachment shall be removed from the Appendix of the"Preliminary Riparian&Water Quality Management Plans"in the PUD Guide and any references to it shall be updated to reflect that stormwater plans shall be finalized at final plat. Additionally, a stormwater plan shall be submitted with each Final Plat for the PUD development. 12. Design Guidelines for the project,including landscape guidelines,architectural guidelines, site lighting guidelines,and a sign plan,shall be provided for review and approval by Eagle County at the first Final Plat for the PUD.Approval shall entail a review through the Minor Modification process and the Design Guidelines shall be recorded. 13. Per the recommendations of the Leonard Rice Engineers ("LRE") memorandums dated August 18, 2020 and September 18, 2020 and agreement from the Applicant in the September 29, 2020 memorandum, a Hydrogeology report conducted by a licensed qualified professional shall be completed prior to finalization of the Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan. The purpose of the study is to determine where flow of groundwater comes from, how it flows to the fen,and whether either the quantity or quality of the groundwater that supports the fen will be impacted by the development. Prior to execution of the study, the scope and methodology of the study will be developed jointly between Eagle County and the • Developer or their assigns. Information from this study will help inform the final design of the stormwater management and treatment systems for adequate protection of the wetland. 14. Per the recommendations of the LRE memorandums dated August 18,2020 and September 18, 2020 and agreement from the Applicant in the September 29, 2020 memorandum, a Wetlands Sensitivity Study conducted by a qualified wetland biologist shall be required for review by Eagle County prior to finalization of the Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan. The purpose of the study is to identify potential pollutants that would negatively impact the fen. If the sensitivity study identifies pollutants that necessitate treatment, revised stormwater treatment will be required for adequate wetland protection. Prior to execution of the study, the scope and methodology of the study will be developed jointly between Eagle County and the Developer or their assigns. 15. Prior to application for the first Final Plat for the PUD, the Final Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan shall incorporate monitoring and reporting recommendations from the August 18, 2020 and September 18, 2020 LRE memorandums, including but not limited to the following: 13 • DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 - Addition of soil testing for peat-mapping and for analyzing additional soil indices, III including the biogeochemical nutrient-breakdown of wetland soils; - Addition of stormwater monitoring locations and frequency, including a plan for monitoring pre, during and post- construction phases of the project; - Creation of a wetland water quality sampling and monitoring program with a minimum of 2 samples collected annually to capture seasonal variability,this may include the placement of additional piezometers as determined during the scoping of the hydrogeologic study; - Addition of soils and water quality monitoring and success criteria consistent with the baseline studies indicated above; - Numeric limitations for stormwater samples, including total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids(DS),total phosphorus(TP),and nitrate/nitrite(NO3-/NO2-).These water quality parameters are good indicators to assess pollution from fertilizer, erosion, and additional sources of urban runoff, and to measure the effectiveness of the stormwater treatment system and maintenance thereof over time; - Reporting requirements, including analytical data, updated wetlands assessments, reporting frequency, and modification to reporting frequency depending on success of the overall monitoring program and development impacts; - Enforceability provisions including a response plan to address a failure to sample and/or report; - A response plan to address exceedances of numeric limitations and any issues that may be identified during wetlands assessments. The response plan should include a provision to coordinate with Eagle County to identify appropriate minimization, mitigation, and restoration activities, to be implemented by the Edwards RiverPark Metro District or the Edwards RiverPark Master Association. • 16. The "Preliminary Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan" attachment shall be removed from the PUD Guide and a final "Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded with the first Final Plat for the PUD. THAT, the Board directs the Community Development Director to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant; and THAT,the Board further finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 14 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • MOVED,READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 18th day of January, 2022, nunc pro tunc to the 26th day of October, 2021. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its pF EAGIEcoG BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: DocuSigned by: DocuSi ned by: r witAA Oti tAA, -.RADD) By. r9j002F240036`40 -CA4AC1281-8AA47A Clerk to the Board Jeanne McQueeney Chair r DoocuSigned by:1aUtiAjltr 1� 1 86A6811-11684403 Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner ,d1ADoocuSignnedby:• �^ aitieluriatu4i.i. Matt Scherr Commissioner Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called,the vote was as follows: Commissioner McQueeney Aye Commissioner Chandler-Henry Aye Commissioner Scherr Aye 15 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 Exh`.sit i • PUD A' '•ement • 21 • Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A Parcel of land located in Sections 5 and 6, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado with the Bearings shown hereon based on a bearing of S89°02'33' E between the Northwest Corner for said Section 5 and the North Quarter Corner for said Section 5, both being 3 1/4 Inch BLM brass caps, found In place, said parcel being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point on the boundary of a parcel of land described at Reception No. 686181 at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder' s Office, Eagle, Colorado also being a point on the souther-ly right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence along said boundary and right-of- way the following seven (7) courses: 1) along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 336.66 feet, a radius of 5779.70 feet, a delta of 03°20'15" and a chord of 336.62 feet that bears N79 °07' 15"E; 2) S01°24'29"W, 51.79 feet; 3) along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 125.92 feet, a radius of 5829.70 feet, a delta of 1°14'15" and a chord of 125.91 feet that bears N77°00'12"E; 4) along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 227.41 feet, a radius of 2010.00 feet, a delta of 06°28'57" and a chord of 227.29 feet that bears N73°08'37"E; 5) N69°54'08"E, 517.90 feet; 6) along a curve to the right having a length of 239.09 feet, a radius of 537.30 feet, a delta of 25 '29'45" and a chord of 237.12 feet that bears N82°39'O 1"E; 7) along a non-tangent curve to the right having a length of 297.87 feet, a radius of 3025.40 feet, a delta of 5°38'28" and a chord of 297.75 feet that bears S81°46'S0"E,to the northeastern corner of said parcel also being the northwesterly corner of a parcel of land described at Reception No. 661197 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office and a point on said right-of-way; Thence along said parcel and right-of-way the following four(4) courses: 1) along a tangent curve to the right having a length of 75.00 feet, a radius of 3025.40 feet, a delta of 1°25'13" and a chord of 75.00 feet that bears S78°14'59'E; 2) along a non-tangent curve to the right having a length of 228.80 feet, a radius of 473.70 feet, a delta of 27°40'26" and a chord of 226.58 feet that bears S63°42'09"E; 3) S49°51'56"E, 173.77 feet; 4) along a curve to the left having a length of 124.32 feet, a radius of 2964.93 feet, a delta of 2° 24'09" and a chord of 124.31 feet that bears S51°04'00"E,to the southeastern corner of said parcel and a point on the North boundary of a parcel of land described In Book 520 at Page 620 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office also being a point on said right-of-way; Thence continuing along said right-of-way and the boundary of said parcel the following two (2) courses: 1) along a tangent curve to the left having a length of 283.61 feet, a radius of 2964.93 feet, a delta of 05°28'50" and a chord of 283.50 feet that bears S55°00'30"E; 16 2) along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 455.05 feet, a radius of 5829.65 feet, a delta of 4°28'20" and a chord of 454.93 feet that bears S59°58'14"E,to the northeasterly corner of said parcel also being the northerly corner of Eaton Ranch as described on the Amended Final Plat recorded at said Clerk and Recorder's Office at Reception No. 927914; Thence along the common line between said Eaton Ranch and said parcel described in said Book 520 at Page 620 the following THREE (3)courses: 1) S17°24'07"W, 427.11 feet; 2) S18°59'07"W, 205.36 feet; 3) S12°08'19"W, 32.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning: Thence continuing along the common line between said Eaton Ranch and said parcel described in said Book 520 at Page 620 the following eight(8) courses: 1) S12°08'19"W, 6.90 feet; 2) S18°46'24"W, 88.58 feet; 3) S61°59'16"W, 193.66 feet; 4) S72°45'36"W, 204.29 feet; 5) S88°38'49"W, 89.79 feet; 6) S43°46'37"W, 427.68 feet; 7) S86°52'18"W, 207.92 feet; 8) S01°47'26"W, 344.91 feet to the northeast corner of the Edwards Nursery PUD as described on the Final Plat thereof, recorded at Reception No. 644681 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office; Thence along the boundary of said Edwards Nursery PUD the following two (2) courses: 1) N87°43'30"W, 134.38 feet; 2) SO4°07'28"W, 306.67 feet to a point on the North right-of-way of U.S. Highway 6; Thence along said right-of-way the following five(5) courses: 1) N76°42'26"W, 89.03 feet 2) S59°36'01"W, 13.88 feet; 3) N76°43'12"W, 905.74 feet; 4) N59°42'43"W, 132.86 feet; 5) N75°14'49"W, 95.73 feet to the southeastern corner of a parcel of land described In Book 629 at Page 404 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office; Thence along the boundary of said parcel and said right-of-way N75°14'49"W, 84.15 feet to the southwestern corner of said parcel also being the southeastern corner of Brett Ranch PUD as recorded at Reception No. 657151 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office; Thence departing said right-of-way and along the line common to said Brett Ranch PUD and said parcel the following two(2)courses: 1) NO2°28'15"E, 397.55 feet; 2) N76°46'01"E, 78.92 feet to the northeastern corner of said parcel also being a point on the West line of said parcel described at said Book 520 at Page 620 and the easterly line of said Brett Ranch PUD; Thence along said common line between said parcel and said East line of Brett Ranch PUD N0l° 38'56"E, 934.88 feet to approximate centerline of the Eagle River; 17 Thence along said approximate centerline of the Eagle River the following eleven(11) courses: 1) S75°13'47"E, 297.75 feet; 2) S86°22'48"E, 176.53 feet; 3) N74°24'15"E, 235.27 feet; 4) S89°18'32"E, 75.47 feet; 5) S64°46'46"E, 96.61 feet; 6) S49°06'54"E, 167.54 feet; 7) S60°03'50"E, 153.80 feet; 8) S75°23'02"E, 152.74 feet; 9) S70°55'45"E, 293.24 feet; 10) S79°48'22"E, 264.80 feet; 11) N85°31'34"E, 334.86 feet Thence departing said approximate centerline of the Eagle River, S18°58'55"W, 39.19 feet; Thence N81°02' 14"E, 37.18 feet; Thence N87°22'53"E, 46.42 feet; Thence S65°50'02"E, 31.19 feet; Thence S70°57'20"E, 71.84 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said parcel containing 53.270 Acres, more or less. 18 Exhibit B Edwards RiverPark PUD Guide 19 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 EDWARDS RIVERPARK PUD Guide PUD Preliminary Plan I 'Zell Mauriello Planning Group DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Table of Contents 1. Title, Ownership, and Legal Description 3 2. Statement of Intent and Purpose 6 3. General Information 6 4. Definitions 7 5. Workforce Housing Plan 11 6. Planning Areas,Allowed Uses, Zoning Standards 14 7. Additional Development Standards 25 8. Sustainability 31 9. River Access and Public Recreation 32 10. Site and Architectural Guidelines 32 11. Open Space and Landscape Guidelines 36 12. Open Space and Common Area Maintenance 37 13. Riparian Plans 38 14. Wildlife Mitigation Measures and Eagle River Preserve Interface 39 15. Signs, lighting, and Hours of Operation 44 16. Water, Sewer, and Water Rights 45 17. Conservation Easements 54 18. Road Impact Fees 55 19. School Land Dedication Fees 55 20. Phasing 55 21. Administration and Enforcement 56 22. Amendments and Modifications 56 23. PUD Guide Execution 59 Appendix. 60 EDWARDS RIVERPARK 2 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 1 . Title, Ownership, and Legal Description This PUD shall be known as the Edwards RiverPark PUD. The owner and applicant is Sierra Trail Investments LLC and its successor and assigns ("Applicant/Owner"). This PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)on October 26,2021 and the Resolution was approved on January 18,2022. The property is referenced by the Eagle County Assessor's Office as parcel number 2105-052-00-011. The legal description of the PUD is: A Parcel of land located in Sections 5 and 6,Township 5 South,Range 82 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle,State of Colorado with the Bearings shown hereon based on a bearing of S89°02'33'E between the Northwest Corner for said Section 5 and the North Quarter Corner for said Section 5,both being 3 1/4 Inch BLM brass caps,found In place,said parcel being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point on the boundary of a parcel of land described at Reception No.686181 at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office,Eagle,Colorado also being a point on the southerly right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence along said boundary and right-of-way the following seven(7)courses: 1)along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 336.66 feet,a radius of 5779.70 feet,a delta of 03°20'15"and a chord of 336.62 feet that bears N79°07'15"E; 2)S01°24'29"W,51.79 feet; 3)along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 125.92 feet,a radius of 5829.70 feet,a delta of 1°14'15"and a chord of 125.91 feet that bears N77°00'12"E; 4)along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 227.41 feet,a radius of 2010.00 feet,a delta of 06°28'57"and a chord of 227.29 feet that bears N73°08'37"E; 5)N69°54'08"E,517.90 feet; 6)along a curve to the right having a length of 239.09 feet,a radius of 537.30 feet,a delta of 25°29'45"and a chord of 237.12 feet that bears N82°39'01'E; 7)along a non-tangent curve to the right having a length of 297.87 feet,a radius of 3025.40 feet,a delta of 598'28"and a chord of 297.75 feet that bears S81°46'S0"E,to the northeastern corner of said parcel also being the northwesterly corner of a parcel of land described at Reception No.661197 at said Clerk and Recorders Office and a point on said right-of-way; Thence along said parcel and right-of-way the following four(4)courses: 1)along a tangent curve to the right having a length of 75.00 feet,a radius of 3025.40 feet,a delta of 1°25'13" and a chord of 75.00 feet that bears 578°14'59'E; EDWARDS RIVERPARK 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 2)along a non-tangent curve to the right having a length of 228.80 feet,a radius of 473.70 feet, a delta of 27°40'26"and a chord of 226.58 feet that bears S63°42'09"E; 3)S49°51'56"E,173.77 feet; 4)along a curve to the left having a length of 124.32 feet,a radius of 2964.93 feet,a delta of 2°24'09"and a chord of 124.31 feet that bears S51°04'00"E,to the southeastern corner of said parcel and a point on the North boundary of a parcel of land described In Book 520 at Page 620 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office also being a point on said right-of-way; Thence continuing along said right-of-way and the boundary of said parcel the following two(2)courses: 1)along a tangent curve to the left having a length of 283.61 feet,a radius of 2964.93 feet,a delta of 05°28'50"and a chord of 283.50 feet that bears S55°00'30"E; 2)along a non-tangent curve to the left having a length of 455.05 feet,a radius of 5829.65 feet,a delta of 4°28'20"and a chord of 454.93 feet that bears S59°58'14"E,to the northeasterly corner of said parcel also being the northerly corner of Eaton Ranch as described on the Amended Final Plat recorded at said Clerk and Recorder's Office at Reception No.927914; Thence along the common line between said Eaton Ranch and said parcel described in said Book 520 at Page 620 the following THREE(3)courses: 1) S17°24'07"W,427.11 feet; 2) S18°59'07"W,205.36 feet; 3) S12°08'19"W,32.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing along the common line between said Eaton Ranch and said parcel described in said Book 520 at Page 620 the following eight(8)courses: 1) 512°08'19"W,6.90 feet; 2) S18°46'24"W,88.58 feet; 3) S61°59'16"W,193.66 feet; 4) S72°45'36"W,204.29 feet; 5) S88°38'49"W,89.79 feet; 6) S43°46'37"W,427.68 feet; 7) S86°52'18"W,207.92 feet; 8) S01°47'26"W,344.91 feet to the northeast corner of the Edwards Nursery PUD as described on the Final Plat thereof,recorded at Reception No.644681 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office; Thence along the boundary of said Edwards Nursery PUD the following two(2)courses: 1) N87°43'30"W,134.38 feet; 2) SO4°07'28"W,306.67 feet to a point on the North right-of-way of U.S.Highway 6; Thence along said right-of-way the following five(5)courses: 1) N76°42'26"W,89.03 feet; 2) S59°36'01"W,13.88 feet; 3) N76°43'12"W,905.74 feet; EDWARDS RIVERPARK 4 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 4) N59°42'43"W,132.86 feet; 5) N75°14'49"W,95.73 feet to the southeastern corner of a parcel of land described In Book 629 at Page 404 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office; Thence along the boundary of said parcel and said right-of-way N75°14'49"W,84.15 feet to the southwestern corner of said parcel also being the southeastern corner of Brett Ranch PUD as recorded at Reception No. 657151 at said Clerk and Recorder's Office; Thence departing said right-of-way and along the line common to said Brett Ranch PUD and said parcel the following two(2)courses: 1) NO2°28'15"E,397.55 feet; 2) N76°46'01"E,78.92 feet to the northeastern corner of said parcel also being a point on the West line of said parcel described at said Book 520 at Page 620 and the easterly line of said Brett Ranch PUD; Thence along said common line between said parcel and said East line of Brett Ranch PUD N01°38'56"E, 934.88 feet to approximate centerline of the Eagle River; Thence along said approximate centerline of the Eagle River the following eleven(11)courses: 1) S75°13'47"E,297.75 feet; 2) 586°22'48"E,176.53 feet; 3) N74°24'15"E,235.27 feet; 4) S89.18'32"E,75.47 feet; 5) S64°46'46"E,96.61 feet; 6) S49°06'54"E,167.54 feet; 7) S60°03'50"E,153.80 feet; 8) S75°23'02"E,152.74 feet; 9) S70°55'45"E,293.24 feet; 10) S79°48'22"E,264.80 feet; 11) N85°31'34"E,334.86 feet Thence departing said approximate centerline of the Eagle River,518°58'55"W,39.19 feet; Thence N81°02'14"E,37.18 feet; Thence N87°22'53"E,46.42 feet; Thence S65°50'02"E,31.19 feet; Thence S70°57'20"E,71.84 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said parcel containing 53.270 Acres,more or less. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 5 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 2. Statement of Intent and Purpose The intent of the Edwards RiverPark PUD is to create a development which allows for a balanced mixed-use neighborhood within the Edwards community that incorporates land uses including open space and resource protection,residential, general commercial,parking, and workforce housing. This PUD Guide is intended to replace and supersede the Land Use Regulations of Eagle County as amended from time to time. Where the PUD Guide is silent as to a regulation, the provisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations shall apply. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this PUD Guide and the provisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations or any other ordinances, resolutions or regulations of Eagle County, the provisions of this PUD Guide shall prevail and govern the development of the PUD. This PUD Guide is intended to ensure the development of Edwards RiverPark is compatible with land uses in the area and to ensure an orderly viable community. 3. General Information The property within the PUD contains 53.27 acres of land situated north of Highway 6 in Edwards, Colorado and land previously used for gravel mining operations. A parcel of land (0.12 acres) is being dedicated to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)for the Highway 6 roundabout right-of-way. The PUD is envisioned to be developed with a mix of uses including a maximum of 170 free- market dwelling units consisting of multiple-family, single or two-family homes, townhouses, 270 deed restricted housing units, and commercial uses such as bar/restaurants, office and retail/general commercials, and a childcare facility. The overall proposed density of the PUD is 8.26 dwelling units per acre, including the workforce housing units. There is no minimum residential floor area or dwelling unit count required by this PUD Guide. The commercial floor area is limited to a maximum of 11,500 sq. ft. net floor area. There are various building types allowing for differentiation in bulk and mass and architecture so that the project expresses a variety of design elements and avoids repetitive design to the degree possible. Buildings are intended to be developed within small, clustered, Planning Areas. Open space within the PUD is extensive with an approximate area of 35 acres (66% of the PUD) including PA-1, PA-7 (partial), PA-8, PA-9, and PA-10. Additionally, there will be passive and EDWARDS RIVERPARK 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 active recreation use areas within the Planning Areas designated for development. Indoor recreation amenities are envisioned within the multiple family buildings and retail areas of the project in order to meet the needs of residents and guests of the PUD. The PUD is intended to be included in multiple Metropolitan Districts (one commercial and one residential) that will help fund basic infrastructure improvements and parking. The Metropolitan Districts will also establish rules and regulations regarding access to open space and recreational amenities of the site. The property is also located within the Edwards Metropolitan District, but it will not be an overlapping district. The PUD is likely to be platted to immediately allow for infrastructure development envisioned with 8 parcels: 5 development parcels, 1 CDOT tract, and 5 open space tracts. Five development parcels will be further subdivided to allow for development and likely approved as condominium, townhouse, or patio home plats. Individual residential lots are not envisioned within this PUD. 4. Definitions Words or terms not defined herein shall he construed to have the meaning given by common and ordinary use as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary New Edition 2016 or as defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations unless otherwise provided herein. Area Median Income (AMI):AMI means Area Median Income for Eagle County as published annually by HUD. Building Envelope: Building Envelope means an area within the PUD where the development of structures is permitted as shown on the Building Envelope Plan. The building envelopes provide the overall perimeter setbacks for each development area within the PUD, in including front, rear, and side setbacks, wetland setbacks, stream setbacks, and 100-year floodplain setbacks for buildings. At a minimum, the building envelopes provide for a 50' wetland setback in PA-2, PA- 7, PA-8, and PA-1() and a 15'wetland setback or 100-year floodplain setback, whichever is greater, in PA-6. Additional setbacks or building separation requirements,internal to the building envelope, are identified for each planning area. Improvements that are allowed outside of building envelopes include the following: parking; sidewalks; trails; driveways, roadways, site- stairs; patios and plazas, drainage facilities; landscaping, retaining walls; shoring walls and soil nails; substantially below grade improvements including, but not limited to,parking and loading facilities, back of house operations, stormwater treatment, and mechanical and utility areas and lines; and similar uses and improvements, except as may be excluded within the wetland setback EDWARDS RIVERPARK 7 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 area described herein. In PA-6 above grade improvements such as decks, with either cantilevered or with supporting columns, are allowed to encroach into the wetland buffer area as shown in the Preliminary Plan. Building envelope lines that form the basis of the wetland setback, as noted on the Building Envelope Plan, shall not allow the following encroachments beyond the wetland setback line, regardless of any statement to the contrary: parking and loading facilities, driveways, roadways,patios, and plazas. If planning areas or roadways are adjusted as allowed by the PUD, the building envelope boundaries may also adjust in the same proportions as the adjustments. Building Footprint: For the purposes of measuring maximum building footprint, building footprint means that area of a Planning Area covered by buildings located above finished grade. Portions of buildings and other structures, including hut not limited to parking, circulation, loading and service, and water quality and detention vaults, that are located substantially below grade are excluded from building footprint. Building Height: Building height means the distance measured vertically to finished grade or the basis of elevation,whichever is more restrictive, of any given point that is:A. to a point directly above that location to the top of a flat roof; or B. the midpoint between the eave line and peak of a sloped roof,whichever is less. This PUD is unique in that it was a gravel mine and the grades are no longer natural, and therefore establishing a maximum basis of elevation from which building height is measured for each Planning Area or portion of a Planning Area is necessary as detailed in each Planning Area. • Commercial Use(s): Commercial uses include restaurants, taverns, tap rooms, breweries and tasting rooms, retail stores,banks,personal service establishments, such as a hair salon, barber, and nail salon,offices, childcare facilities, spas,fitness and athletic clubs, outfitter and guide operations and facilities, and uses determined to be similar by the Eagle County Community Development Director. Commercial uses shall not include retail marijuana or medical marijuana businesses as defined by Eagle County. Retail marijuana or medical marijuana businesses are prohibited in this PUD. Commercial Floor Area, Net: Commercial floor area, net includes all enclosed commercial spaces that are designed to be leased or occupied for commercial purposes, exclusive of any area dedicated to foyers, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors, mechanical areas, and storage areas used on the site. This excludes any un-enclosed uses, including but not limited to outdoor market spaces. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 8 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 Density: Dwelling units per acre of total land area. Dwelling Unit or Unit: Dwelling Unit means a living space or combination of rooms designed to provide independent living facilities for a group of people,constructed to the minimum standards of the building code and with provisions for sleeping, eating and sanitation. The terms residential unit,rental apartment unit, workforce housing unit,and units for senior housing shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit. Eligible Household: An Eligible Household is a household where at least one member of the household meets at least one of the following criteria: A. Has earned a living primarily in Eagle County by having worked an average of at least thirty (30) hours per week on an annual basis at a business with an office or job site physically located in Eagle County(multiple jobs in Eagle County may be combined to reach 30 hours per week); or B. Has been hired for a job in Eagle County on a permanent basis to work at least thirty (30) hours per week; or C. Is an employee that makes their home in Eagle County but works for employers that are located outside of Eagle County(i.e. telecommuters) as long as all other eligibility requirements are met and the Household can prove Eagle County residency for at least 1 year before application submission; or D. Is over the age of sixty(60) and had earned a living primarily in Eagle County prior to his or her retirement; or E. Is a disabled person who had been a full-time employee in Eagle County for a minimum of two years immediately prior to his or her disability or has been granted an exception to the minimum of 30 hours per week in order to continue with a federal or state benefit program, if the person works the maximum number of hours per week the disabled person will have met the intent of the programs criteria; or F. The household cumulatively earns at least 75% of the Household's Gross Household Income in Eagle County. Impervious area: For the purpose of measuring impervious area, impervious area means an at- grade surface that does not readily allow water to infiltrate into the ground, including roadways, sidewalks, patios,plazas, buildings, and swimming pools. Improvements including,but not limited to, parking, circulation,loading and service, and water quality and detention vaults,that are located substantially below grade are excluded from impervious area. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 9 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Metropolitan or Metro District or District: A special district or districts used to fund, maintain, operate, or regulate improvements and activities within or adjacent to the PUD. Owner or Applicant: The owner is the owner of the property contained within the PUD at the time of application or a subsequent owner of the land. Planning Area(s): Planning Areas as indicated on the PUD Zoning Plan and as defined herein. Property Owners' Association, Homeowners' Association, or Master Association: The property owners' association, homeowners' association, or master association is the entity that will manage and direct the operation of buildings within the PUD and their common elements once turned over to such association by the Owner. Real Estate Transfer Fee: A one percent(1%)fee charged on the gross sales price paid by any purchaser of a residential dwelling unit within the PUD that is not permanently deed restricted (i.e.,free market units). Rental Apartment Unit:A dwelling unit that is being rented on a non-short term rental basis. Senior Housing: Senior housing is housing that is suitable for the needs of an aging population, including but not limited to,which includes independent living, assisted living, short and long- term care, and nursery care. Seasonal Event Center: A building and related outdoor areas such as patios, decks, and lawn areas,with a maximum floor area of 4,500 sq. ft.,where the following uses are allowed outside of winter elk closures: weddings, religious services, yoga and wellness activities, educational seminars, outfitter and guide facilities related to fishing,and offices for PUD or Metro District related management. The Seasonal Event Center is located on PA-7 only and is subject to winter closures as regulated herein. Access is restricted to foot or golf carts except for the occasional deliveries related to events when vehicular access may be allowed, access required for emergencies, or access required by Eagle County. The seasonal event center is not considered commercial floor area. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Short Term Rental:A rental of a residential dwelling unit for a period not exceeding thirty(30) clays. 5. Workforce Housing Plan The affordable housing mitigation contained in this PUD Guide shall supersede any housing, inclusionary, or commercial linkage requirements or guidelines of Eagle County. The Eagle County Housing Guidelines require a minimum of 110 deed restricted residential dwelling units to meet the recommended affordable housing mitigation contained in the Eagle County Housing Guidelines(hereinafter referred to collectively as "workforce housing units"). The PUll is proposing to exceed the County's Housing Guidelines by providing workforce housing units in the following manner: Rental Apartment Units: A minimum of 90 rental apartment units shall be provided. The following minimums shall apply to these rental apartment units: 72 units will be permanently deed restricted with a price cap for occupancy by an Eligible Household with rents at or below 100% of AMI; 9 units will be permanently deed restricted with a price cap for occupancy by an Eligible Household with rents at or below 80% of AMI; and 9 units will be permanently deed restricted as Resident Occupied,for occupancy by an Eligible Household without a price cap. The 81 rental apartment units with permanent price capped rental deed restrictions may be eligible for a property tax exemption as allowed by law for a period of years up to but not exceeding 20 years. The request for a tax exemption must be approved by the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and the Eagle County Assessor. Price capped rental apartment units may be leased or master leased to businesses located within Eagle County as long as those occupying the apartment units leased are Eligible Households. The Maximum Rental Rate for rental apartment units shall include all ongoing fees required to be paid.by the resident(including but not limited to utilities and mandatory parking fees). For Sale/Flexible, Resident Occupied Dwelling Units: At least 28% of the dwelling units constructed above and beyond the 90 rental apartment units detailed above within the PUD shall be permanently deed restricted with a Resident Occupied for sale deed restriction that restricts ownership and occupancy to an Eligible Household. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 11 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-465A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Additionally, another 23%of the dwelling units constructed above and beyond the 90 rental apartment units detailed above within the PUD shall be permanently deed restricted with a Resident Occupied deed restriction (either as for sale or rental dwelling units) that restricts ownership and occupancy to an Eligible Household. For example, if all 440 allowable dwelling units are constructed within the PUD, the result would be 90 deed restricted rental apartment units as detailed above, 98 deed restricted for sale Resident Occupied dwelling units, 82 deed restricted Resident Occupied dwelling units as either rental or for sale, at the discretion of the Applicant. Of the 440 allowable dwelling units, 270 units will have some form of deed restriction assuming all 440 units are constructed. The Resident Occupied dwelling units will generally be consistent with the bedroom mix of the free market dwelling units found onsite with some flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. Residential Dwelling Units,without deed restrictions (i.e.,free market units): All residential dwelling units within the PUD, that are not permanently deed restricted (i.e.,free market units), shall be subject to a one percent (1%)Real Estate Transfer Fee on the gross sales price on every transfer of ownership, in perpetuity. Initial sales by the Applicant/Owner will be subject to the RETF. The RETF will be paid at the closing of each applicable sale. The obligation to pay the RETF will be the responsibility of the purchaser in each applicable transaction(though the parties in any transaction may agree separately to adjust the economic effect of the RETF through closing adjustments). The following transactions will be exempt from the RETF: (1) any purchase by any county, municipality, school district, housing authority or other governmental entity for affordable housing purposes; and(ii)each transfer of a non-deed restricted dwelling unit for no consideration(e.g., a transfer by reason of death, a gift for no consideration other than love and affection, a charitable donation, a transfer among affiliated entities where no purchase price is paid, etc.). These funds shall be transmitted to the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority to be used for workforce housing occupancy and production. This transfer fee is intended to help generate a revenue source for the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Short Term Rental: Short term rental of all dwelling units and rental apartment units is prohibited. General Provisions: There shall be no affordable housing mitigation requirement for any non-residential uses or commercial development within the PUD. Annual verification of continued compliance with the dwelling unit deed restrictions shall be required of all deed restricted unit owners. The owner of any such units must document how EDWARDS RIVERPARK 12 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 eligibility was confirmed and provide documentation of continued eligibility for each unit to the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority by February 15 of each year. Housing Mitigation and Phasing: The value of the deed restricted units provided in this PUD is as follows: • A deed restricted unit that is income restricted or price capped (for sale or rental) at or below 80% of AMI, shall be valued as 2 deed restricted units; • A deed restricted unit that is income restricted or price capped(for sale or rental) at rents greater than 80% to 100% of AMI, shall he valued as 2 deed restricted units; and • A Resident Occupied Rental Deed Restricted unit without income restrictions,price caps, or rent restrictions, shall be valued as 0.5 deed restricted units; and a Resident Occupied For-Sale Deed Restricted unit shall be valued as 1 deed restricted unit. 50%of the required rental apartment units shall be developed within the first development phase of the PUD. The remaining 50% of the rental apartment units shall be provided prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the 300ih dwelling unit within the PUD. The timing of the Resident Occupied deed restricted dwelling units shall occur as phases of the development are completed so that the ratio of deed restricted dwelling units to free market dwelling units are generally at a minimum 1:1 ratio during development of the PUD. A PUD Amendment will be required for any changes in project phasing and/or unit mix that result in a disproportionate reduction in the number of deed restricted units or results in a housing plan that no longer exceeds the recommendations of the Housing Guidelines. Additional Workforce Housing Opportunities: In order to increase the opportunity for workforce housing within the PUD, a minimum of an additional 45 dwelling units within the PUD, likely within Phase 3 and PA-3 of the PUD,are available to be deed restricted as Price Capped or Resident Occupied, in the event further subsidy or buy-down of unit price is provided by the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority("ECHDA"), another funding partner, or any other source of subsidy. The details of any such subsidy or buy down, occupancy limitations, AMI restrictions, and the like (collectively "subsidy")will be determined by the ECHDA and the developer prior to dwelling unit construction, however, any financial participation by ECHDA is conditioned on(i) the value of dwelling units being the actual cost of constructing the dwelling unit plus a profit margin (such margin shall be no greater than the average profit margin that the developer would have achieved for these units without a subsidy, or 7%, whichever is less), and (ii)approval of such subsidy by the ECHDA. The developer agrees EDWARDS RIVERPARK 13 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 that it will provide the ECHDA or its representative with access to its audited financials, books and records, and pro formas for proposed future development or phases for review prior to a determination by the ECHDA as to the amount of any subsidy. For purposes of this provision, "actual cost" means all hard and soft costs, including,but not limited to, the total cost of labor, materials,provisions, supplies, fees, tests, expenses,bonds, equipment rentals, equipment purchases, insurance, supervision, engineering, clerical, and accounting services, and reasonable estimates of other administrative costs which may be reasonably apportioned to each dwelling unit in construction of such unit. Actual cost may also include a proportionate share of infrastructure costs borne by the PUD that would typically be included in the cost of a dwelling unit. 6. Planning Areas, Allowed Uses, Zoning Standards Planning Areas are represented on the PUD Zoning Plan attached as an exhibit to this PUD Guide. It should be noted that a parcel of land (CDOT Parcel) containing 0.12 acres is being dedicated to CDOT and is not included in the Planning Areas below. The following use allowances and zoning standards apply to each Planning Area. A. Planning Area 1 (PA-1) - 31.185 acres: Uses by Right: Open space Trails located outside of wetland areas as allowed for fishing access to the Eagle River. Limited docks, boardwalks, and elevated trails with ancillary rest areas,seating locations, and covered areas, as generally represented on the conceptual development plan,with an approximate width of 8' (larger in rest areas, seating areas, and dock areas) and an overall approximate length of 2,400'. Details of the proposed boardwalk and dock are included in the Preliminary Plan. Wetlands improvement and restoration Vegetation management Recreation activities, including but not limited to, fishing,boating, and stand-up paddle boarding Accessory Uses: Lighting and signage related to the boardwalk EDWARDS RIVERPARK 14 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D0784 Dwelling Units and Building Height: Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 0 Maximum Building Height: 0' B. Planning Area 2 (PA-2 east and west) — 3.14 acres: Use by Right: Single-family Residential Two-family Residential Townhouse Residential Parking facilities Senior Housing Day Care Center Accessory Uses: Customary residential accessory uses including, but not limited to, decks,patios, walking paths, benches,seating areas, bicycle racks, refuse containers, and similar amenities Home occupation Parks, recreation areas,and facilities and structures associated with such uses Club houses and related amenities Utilities and structures associated with such utilities Solar and other energy production facilities Restrooms Storage facilities in support of uses located onsite Carports Garages, attached or detached Dwelling Units,Building Height, and Separation: Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 30 Maximum Building Height: 40' (basis of elevation = 7,152' single/two family, existing grade created after road development for Townhouses) Spires, towers, elevator penthouses, cupolas, chimneys, mechanical equipment, and similar non-habitable projections may extend beyond the building height not to exceed 15' of the additional height Building Separation and Internal Setbacks: 12.5' between structures or minimum required by building code, whichever is greater EDWARDS RIVERPARK 15 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 C. Planning Area 3 (PA-3) - 2.78 acres: Use by Right: Multiple-Family Residential Townhouse Residential Commercial Uses Parking facilities Senior Housing Day Care Center Accessory Uses: Customary commercial and residential accessory uses including, but not limited to, decks,patios,walking paths, benches, seating areas,bicycle racks, refuse containers, and similar amenities Home occupation Parks, recreation areas, and facilities and structures associated with such uses Club houses and related amenities Solar and other energy production facilities Restrooms Storage facilities in support of uses located onsite Carports Garages, attached or detached Building Height and Separation: Maximum Building Height: PA-3A: 55' (basis of elevation = 7,148') PA-3B: 68'(basis of elevation = 7,148'), except that buildings fronting upon Highway 6 shall be limited to a height above the respective elevation of Highway 6 of 35' PA-3C: 45' (basis of elevation = 7,152') Spires, towers, elevator penthouses, cupolas, chimneys, mechanical equipment, and similar non-habitable projections may extend beyond the building height not to exceed 15' of the additional height Building Separation and Internal Setbacks: 0'for parking levels 20' between structures or minimum required by building code,whichever is greater D. Planning Area 4 (PA-4) - 2.79 acres: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 16 DocuSign Envelope,ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Use by Right: Multiple-Family Residential Townhouse Residential Parking facilities Senior Housing Day Care Center Accessory Uses: Customary commercial and residential accessory uses including, but not limited to, decks,patios, walking paths, benches, seating areas,bicycle racks, refuse containers, and similar amenities Commercial uses Home occupation Parks, recreation areas, and facilities and structures associated with such uses Club houses and related amenities Solar and other energy production facilities Restrooms Storage facilities in support of uses located onsite Carports Garages, attached or detached Building Height and Separation: Maximum Building Height: 70' (basis of elevation = 7,158')for Multiple Family Building 1 and 70' (basis of elevation = 7,169')for Multiple Family Buildings 2 and 3, except that buildings fronting upon Highway 6 shall be limited to a height above the respective elevation of Highway 6 of 35' Spires, towers, elevator penthouses, cupolas,chimneys, mechanical equipment, and similar non-habitable projections may extend beyond the building height not to exceed 15' of the additional height Building Separation and Internal Setbacks: 0'for parking levels 20' between structures or minimum required by building code,whichever is greater E. Planning Area 5 (PA-5) - 7.28 acres: Use by Right: Multiple-Family Residential Townhouse Residential EDWARDS RIVERPARK 17 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Commercial Uses Parking facilities Senior Housing Day Care Center Accessory Uses: Customary commercial and residential accessory uses including,but not limited to, decks,patios, walking paths, benches, seating areas,bicycle racks, refuse containers, kiosks, temporary commercial vending, and similar amenities Home occupation Parks, plazas, recreation areas, and facilities and structures associated with such uses Club houses and related amenities Solar and other energy production facilities Restrooms Storage facilities in support of uses located onsite Carports Garages Building Height and Separation: Maximum Building Height: 55' (basis of elevation = 7,152') Spires, towers, elevator penthouses, cupolas,chimneys, mechanical equipment,and similar non-habitable projections may extend beyond the building height not to exceed 15' of the additional height. Building Separation and Internal Setbacks: 0' for parking levels 20'between structures or minimum required by building code,whichever is greater F. Planning Area 6 (PA-6) - 1.87 acres: Use by Right: Multiple-Family Residential(if commercial buildings are developed, residential uses may only be located above or below the commercial space and not as a separate building footprint) Commercial Uses Parking facilities Accessory Uses: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 18 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Customary commercial and residential accessory uses including, but not limited to, decks,patios, walking paths, benches, seating areas,bicycle racks, refuse containers, kiosks,temporary commercial vending, and similar amenities Home occupation Parks, plazas, recreation areas, and facilities and structures associated with such uses Club houses and related amenities Solar and other energy production facilities Restrooms Storage facilities in support of uses located onsite Carports Garages Dwelling Units and Building Height: Maximum Building Height: 15' (basis of elevation 7,152') Spires, towers, elevator penthouses, cupolas,chimneys, mechanical equipment, and similar non-habitable projections may extend beyond the building height not to exceed 15' of the additional height Building Separation and Internal Setbacks: None except as required by building code G. Planning Area 7 (PA-7) (East Park)- 1.668 acres (1.5 acres of open space): Use by Right: Seasonal Event Center(see definition for restrictions) Trails Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses and structures to the uses by right including, but not limited to, decks,patios,walking paths, benches, seating areas, bicycle racks, refuse containers, and similar amenities Dwelling Units and Building Height: Maximum Density: 0 Maximum Building Height: 35'(basis of elevation = existing or finished grade,whichever is more restrictive)with a maximum of two stories EDWARDS RIVERPARK 19 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Spires, towers, elevator penthouses, cupolas, chimneys, mechanical equipment, and similar non-habitable projections may extend beyond the building height not to exceed 15' of the additional height Building Setbacks: Pursuant to the established building envelope. Maximum Floor Area: 4,500 sq. ft. H. Planning Area 8 (PA-8) (Central Park East) - 1.332 acres: Use by Right: Parks, recreation areas, and facilities and structures associated with such uses Trails Below grade parking facilities At grade or below grade stormwater treatment facilities Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses and structures to the uses by right including,but not limited to, decks,patios,walking paths, benches, seating areas, bicycle racks, refuse containers, and similar amenities Dwelling Units and Building Height: Maximum Density: 0 Maximum Building Height: 35' (basis of elevation = 7,152') Setbacks: Pursuant to the established building envelope for above grade buildings. I. Planning Area 9 (PA-9) (West Park) - 0.535 acres: Use by Right: Park-like uses with limited above grade structures, including,but not limited to, seating area,picnic tables,benches, and tent structures (no roofed or enclosed structures during the winter wildlife closure period) Soft surface trails Below grade parking facilities At grade or below grade stormwater treatment facilities Landscape berms of up to 8' in height and 150' in length Wildlife mitigation improvements EDWARDS RIVERPARK 20 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-465A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Dwelling Units: Maximum Density: 0 J. Planning Area 10 (PA-10) (Central Park West) — 0.57 acres: Use by Right: Parks, recreation areas,and facilities and structures associated with such uses Trails Below grade parking facilities At grade or below grade stormwater treatment facilities Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses and structures to the uses by right including, but not limited to, decks,patios,walking paths,benches, seating areas, bicycle racks, refuse containers, and similar amenities Dwelling Units and Building Height: Maximum Density: 0 Maximum Building Height: 35' (basis of elevation = 7,152') Setbacks: Pursuant to the established building envelope for above grade buildings. K. Overall PUD Limitations: Overall Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 440 (maximum of 170 free market units, and minimum of 270 workforce housing units) Overall Maximum Commercial Floor Area(net): 11,500 sq.ft. Maximum area of Seasonal Event Center: 4,500 sq. ft. L. Minimum Building Setbacks (overall PUD): Building envelopes have been developed for all of the development areas within the PUD and are included in the Building Envelope Plan attached to this PUD Guide. The building envelopes form the minimum building setbacks required for this PUD. Building envelopes will be reflected on future subdivision plats. The Building Envelopes provide the following setbacks: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 21 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Front(Highway 6 frontage)- 25' East Boundary of PUD- 20' West adjacent to PA-9- 12.5' Rear(south) -The more restrictive of 100-year flood plain, 75' stream setback, or wetland setback which is a minimum of 50' except in PA-6 where is it permitted to be 15'. Internal setbacks are described in each Planning Area. Roof overhangs and stairs may project 18"beyond the building envelope on the perimeter of the PUD and 5'within internal areas of the PUD. The front building envelope line along Highway 6 will be measured from the platted property line or right-of-way line. Building envelopes along Highway 6 for PA-4 shall have a minimum of 25' setback from the right-of-way. Any bus stop or transportation infrastructure may encroach into this setback, thus reducing the building envelope's setback,if such infrastructure is located adjacent to outdoor or building common areas. M.Floor Area, Building Footprint, Impervious Area, Landscape Area: Maximum Floor Area (gross): None Maximum Building Footprint: 80% of the combined area of Planning Areas 2-10 In order to implement this overall restriction, the following limits shall apply per Planning Area: PA-2: 30% PA-3: 50% PA-4: 50% PA-5: 50% PA-6: 80% PA-7: 8% PA-8: 8% PA-9: 0% PA-l 0: 8% Maximum Impervious Area (including building footprints): 80% of the combined area of Planning Areas 2-10 In order to implement this overall restriction, the following limits shall apply per Planning Area: PA-2: 60% PA-3: 80% PA-4: 80% PA-5: 80% EDWARDS RIVERPARK 22 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 PA-6: 80% PA-7: 15% PA-8: 35% PA-9: 10% PA-10: 35% Minimum Landscape Area: 10% of the combined area of Planning Areas 2-10 In order to implement this overall restriction, the following limits shall apply per Planning Area: PA-2: 40% PA-3: 20% PA-4: 20% PA-5: 20% PA-6: 20% PA-7: 8 5% PA-8: 65% PA-9: 90% PA-10: 65% Landscape area located on top of a structure which is substantially below finished grade shall count as landscape area. N. Density Transfers between Planning Areas: Density or the number of dwelling units or commercial floor area, where commercial uses are allowed, may transfer freely between Planning Areas as long as the total density or commercial floor area does not exceed the maximum for the PUD, subject to the following restrictions: • PA-1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 shall not be allowed any density; • PA-2 shall be limited to a maximum density identified in PA-2; • Any density transfer to PA-6 is subject to prior approval from the County through the Limited Review process. The Applicant agrees to submit a wetland analysis, if requested, evaluating the impacts of the density transfer on wetlands in PA6, including any appropriate mitigation measures; and • Workforce housing units are permitted to transfer between all Planning Areas except those that are not allowed density as noted above. O. Planning Area Acreage: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 23 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Planning areas may change in size by 20%, except for PA-1, 7, and 9,which may not be reduced in size. PA-8 shall maintain a minimum size of one acre. P. Customary Ancillary Improvements: In all Planning Areas except PA-1, customary ancillary improvements are allowed, including but not limited to, utilities, drainage and stormwater facilities,parking related to a perruitted use, park improvements,light fixtures, signage, recreational equipment, driveways, and sidewalks and trails. Accessory uses allowed in PA-1 are detailed in that Planning Area. Q. Day Care / Childcare Facility: The applicant shall make available for lease up to 2,500 sq. ft. of commercial floor area within the PUD suitable for childcare to a licensed and experienced childcare provider. The lease rate will be $1 per year conditioned on the provider is making available a percentage of the use at below free-market rates to children of families unable to afford market rate childcare in addition to prioritizing all children living within the PUD. The timing of the space being available is tied to there being 10,000 sq. ft. of leasable commercial space having a Certificate of Occupancy and being available for lease or utilized for commercial purposes or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of the 300th dwelling unit within the PUD. The childcare space may be owned by a metropolitan district, the HOA, the applicant, or another governmental or nonprofit organization at the discretion of the applicant. The space will be provided in a core and shell condition and any improvements are the responsibility of the childcare provider in. Eagle County shall provide all reasonable efforts to exempt the childcare space from property taxes and impact fees as may be allowed by law. The applicant shall not be required to provide any additional subsidy for the childcare space and the provider shall be responsible for all utilities, maintenance and upkeep, taxes,metro district assessments, and association charges. If no bonafide licensed and experienced operators are willing or able to operate the space for a childcare facility, then the space may be used for other purposes as allowed by the PUD Guide subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. A consultant fully versed in the Colorado childcare licensing requirements shall be involved in the design of the proposed childcare space so that once constructed the space can be finished and meet Colorado licensing requirements. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 24 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-485A-9C25-2245931D07B4 7. Additional Development Standards Below are additional development standards applicable to the PUD. These standards shall constitute the minimum parking requirements for the PUD. A. Parking Requirements: Townhouse and Multiple-Family Parking: 1 parking space for a studio dwelling unit 1.5 parking spaces for one-bedroom dwelling unit 2 parking spaces for two-bedroom dwelling unit 2 parking spaces for three-bedroom dwelling unit 2.5 parking spaces for four+ bedroom dwelling unit Tandem parking is allowed for up to 30% of required parking. 50% of multiple family parking may be within a managed valet program. It is not intended that deed restricted multiple family units be required.to utilize a valet parking program for daily parking needs. The valet parking plan shall be reviewed by Eagle County during building permit process to ensure proper functionality and operation. The applicant will be required to provide evidence of proper functionality if requested by Eagle County. Single-Family and Two-Family Parking: 2 parking spaces per unit Tandem parking allowed for 50% of required parking Commercial Parking: 4 parking spaces for each 1,000 net leasable sq. ft. general commercial uses (retail, services, daycare, and freestanding office) 2 parking spaces,for each 1,000 net leasable sq. ft. of spa and related services 1 parking space per 4 seats for a restaurant or bar Onsite amenities do not have a parking requirement including private fitness centers within multiple-family buildings, Seasonal Event Center, or outdoor venues. Outdoor restaurant and outdoor bar seating accessory to indoor restaurant and bar space does not require additional parking. Valet parking shall be allowed for up to 100% of the commercial uses. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 25 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 The parking requirements do not rely upon a shared parking reduction. If a reduction in parking can be demonstrated due to shared parking and hours of utilization, a shared parking reduction can be reviewed as a minor modification. B. Parking Space Size Minimums: Standard surface parking spaces: 9'x 19' Standard enclosed parking spaces: 9' x 18' Compact parking spaces: 8' x 18' for no more than 15% of required spaces Handicap Accessible parking spaces: 8.5'x 19' and will be provided in accordance with Section 4-140E of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. All surface space dimensions may include a 1' sidewalk overhang where a 5'wide minimum sidewalk width is provided. C. Other parking related standards and requirements: All parking areas shall be paved. Use of automated parking systems or mechanical parking lift systems shall be allowed within parking structures for multiple-family uses. No more than 75% of the required parking shall be by automated mechanical system. An automated parking system is a mechanical system designed to minimize the area and/or volume required for parking cars.An automated parking system provides parking for cars on multiple levels stacked vertically to maximize the number of parking spaces while minimizing land usage. The automated parking system utilizes a mechanical system to transport cars to and from parking spaces (rather than the driver)in order to eliminate much of the space wasted in a multi-story parking garage. Parking space size and access standards may be altered to allow for such systems. The parking provided shall be counted towards the minimum parking requirement, as necessary. Required parking may be located anywhere within the PUD and does not have to be in the same site as the primary use is located. On-street parking is not envisioned within the PUD, however, if provided, driveway or roadway cross sections will need the accommodate the additional width required. Prior to the first building permit application for each Planning Area in the PUD, a comprehensive parking plan including a study by a qualified professional of the number and size of spaces,vehicles served, design, location, and functionality of EDWARDS RIVERPARK 26 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 the parking spaces, loading berths, delivery vehicle spaces, and accessible parking spaces must be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department. The standards of the ECLUR must be followed unless a specific variation relating to parking has been granted by the Board under this PUD approval. Valet and mechanical parking designs must contemplate servicing vehicles of a standard size and weight for the area. If the study identifies that the built or planned parking supply is inadequate,the Applicant/Owner shall be required to provide additional parking management strategies acceptable to the County Engineer, or provide additional parking to accommodate the projected parking demand prior to building permit issuance. The parking rate study shall be conducted at full or normal residential occupancy, and shall be coordinated with the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding timing and methodology. D. Access and Driveways: Access to the PUD is limited to two vehicular access road connections to Highway 6. Highway 6 accesses shall be developed in accordance with CDOT requirements. The primary access to the PUD will be from a roundabout developed within CDOT right-of-way. The secondary access will be developed as a right in/right out access or as otherwise permitted by CDOT. There are no roads within the PUD being dedicated to Eagle County or Edwards Metropolitan District.All roads within the PUD will be subject to public access easements for access by the public and emergency services. There will be a portion of the PUD property anticipated to be dedicated to CDOT or Eagle County to accommodate the proposed roundabout on Highway 6. Dedication of Highway 6 right-of-way shall not affect the development standards or limitations found herein. The necessary right-of-way for Hwy 6 widening and Lake Creek Road roundabout, as determined by CDOT, shall be dedicated by the Applicant/Owner or their assigns at the first Final Plat for the PUD. All vehicular access and circulation is being provided by roadways and driveways within the PUD which are expected to be developed and maintained by newly formed Metropolitan District. Backing of vehicles into private roadways shall be allowed, except on the two primary roadways within the PUD. Driveway grades shall be allowed to a maximum of 8% unless heated (snowmelted)whereby they may have a maximum grade of 12%. Ramps within parking structures maybe be steeper than 12%if developed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. Parking areas may slope at a maximum of 5%. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 27 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Areas of roadways,bicycle lanes,and sidewalks with grades in excess of 8% shall be heated and extend to the Highway 6 roundabout, subject to CDOT approval. The primary access roadways (roadways with an Average Daily Trip volume of 750 or greater)within the PUD will be a minimum of 23' in width with a 50' right-of-way. Secondary roads (roadways with an Average Daily Trip volume of less than 750) shall have a minimum width of 20'with a 40' right-of-way. Driveway aisles within parking areas will conform to Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Access driveways serving 3 or fewer dwelling units will have a minimum width of 12'. Paved sidewalks shall he a minimum of 6'wide except where the sidewalk connects the boardwalk to the core commercial areas of the site and sidewalks along Highway 6, the path shall be a minimum of 8'wide. Soft surface trails should generally have a width of 6' except where a lesser width is advantageous for environmental reasons, subject to Eagle County approval. All buildings shall adhere to requirements for vehicular sight distance and may require additional building setbacks to accommodate adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians. An analysis by a licensed engineer, specifically demonstrating adequacy of the sign distances around buildings, shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. Other driveway standards not mentioned herein shall conform to American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards and recommendations. Internal roadway designs including anticipated trips, access locations, design speeds, design criteria, and emergency vehicle accesses shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department at each Final Plat that includes construction activities. E. Transit Infrastructure: Applicant/Owner shall obtain all final CDOT Access Permits, CDOT Utilities and Special Use Permits, and approval by Eagle County of proposed transit infrastructure prior to the first Final Plat for the PUD. All improvements associated with the CDOT Access Permit and Utilities and Special Use Permit, including but not limited to Hwy 6 widening and the roundabout, bus stop pull off lane to back of curb, and secondary access shall be collateralized as public improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement associated with the first Final Plat for the PUD.All improvements shall be fully funded by EDWARDS RIVERPARK 28 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 the Applicant/Owner and completed and accepted prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy of the first building permit issued for the PUD. All improvements associated with approved transit infrastructure, including but not limited to bus shelters and sidewalks shall be collateralized as public improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement associated with the first Final Plat for the PUD.All improvements shall be fully funded by the Applicant/Owner and completed and accepted prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy of the first building permit issued for the PUD. F. Trash and Recycling: All trash shall be stored within trash structures and within wildlife proof containers. All commercial and multiple family structures shall have access to an onsite recycling and trash collection facility. The same amount of floor area devoted to trash collection shall also be available for recycling facilities. G. Water Quality Measures: The PUD shall include low impact design elements (best practices) to further mitigate water quality impacts. Additionally, all parking structures will include sand and oil separators to ensure clean water is discharged from parking structures. Water quality vaults and facilities with appropriate filtration will be the primary form of water quality treatment within the PUD. H. Water Quantity Measures: Indoor water fixtures and outdoor irrigation fixtures will use the latest technologies and be water use efficient fixtures. Commercial and residential fixtures, including but not limited to, toilets, urinals, shower heads,faucets, irrigation controllers shall he certified by the EPA's Water Sense program,or have an equivalent rating. Other irrigation devices, such as spray sprinkler bodies shall be rated for efficiency and low flow. All water using residential appliances, such as dishwashers, ice machines, and washing machines, shall be certified by the Energy Star program. This will reduce water needs for the project and to reduce water rights expenses as well. Final water requirements and limitations will be determined by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority(UERWA) and owner. Verification of the installation of required water efficiency fixtures and appliances will be inspected prior to occupancy. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 29 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 I. Ridgeline Protection: Ridgeline Protection regulations found in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations do not apply to this PUD. J. Erosion Control: The PUD will comply with the Erosion Control Standards found in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations or alternative best management practices. K. Temporary uses and lay down: During construction, all Planning Areas except PA-1, PA-7, and PA-9, may be used for temporary uses including, but not limited to, construction offices,worker housing(not including Recreational Vehicles),unpaved parking, construction material and equipment storage, waste collection, restrooms, and sales offices. All such uses may be approved as a Minor Modification or during the building permit review process as determined by the Community Development Director. L. Noise standards: The following noise standards shall apply to the PUD: Every use shall be operated such that the noise level produced does not inherently and recurrently exceed sixty(60) dBA, during the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., or fifty-five (55) dBA from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. During the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., the noise levels permitted may increase a maximum of five (5) dBA for a period not to exceed fifteen (15)minutes in any one (1)hour. During the seasonal wildlife closures, amplified sound from common areas,patios, pools, hot tubs, and rooftop decks decibel levels shall be limited to fifty-five (55) dBA twenty-four hours a day. Noise levels are measured at the property boundary of the PUD. M. Floodplain Permit: To demonstrate that the PUD development is reasonably safe from flooding and not creating floodplain connectivity, a floodplain development permit is required for any development of a structure, as defined in the ECLUR, or uncovered porches, decks, or other similar structurally attached projection within 10 ft. horizontally of the delineated l 00-yr floodplain or 2 ft. vertically of the Base Flood Elevation at any point along the structure. N. Geologic Hazards Assessment: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 30 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 Development within the PUD shall comply with the Geologic Hazards Assessment, dated April 4, 2019, and prepared by Cesare, Inc. found in the appendix of this PUD Guide. 8. Sustainability The PUD has been developed with environmental sustainability at the forefront of the design. The PUD is protecting the vast wetland areas of the site and has cluster development into the areas of the site that were previously affected by the gravel mining operation that existed for three decades. The PU D's goal is to strive for a net zero carbon development footprint. The following sustainability measures will he employed for this PUD. • All multiple family buildings in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. will be independently verified and certified to comply with the National Green Building Standard. Other above code alternatives such as IgCC, LEED, or similar as agreed upon by the Applicant/Owner or its assigns and the Eagle County Sustainable Communities Department Director may also be acceptable; • Solar, photovoltaic,panels are planned for the roofs of multiple-family buildings and other structures to offset energy consumption. A minimum goal of a 15°/„ renewable energy offset of total energy use will be provided within the PUD; • Electric car charging stations will be provided within each multiple-family structure. A minimum of four electric car charging stations shall be provided for each multiple-family or commercial parking facility onsite or a minimum of 16 charging stations with the PUD; • All dwelling units will be equipped with efficient water fixtures(Water Sense certified or equivalent) and appliances (EnergyStar certified or equivalent); • The Applicant will fund, design, and construct transit stops adjacent to the PUD; • Sidewalks and trails will be developed within the PUD such that everyone living within the PUD or coming to the PUD will be afforded reasonable pedestrian and bicycle access; • A minimum of l0% of the parking provided in multiple family or commercial parking areas may be reserved for carpool vehicles depending on demand identified in the comprehensive parking plan at building permit; • Covered bicycle parking will be provided within the PUD for at least 25% of the occupants of the PUD. Bicycle storage may be provided in a variety of locations within the PUD including within dwelling units themselves; EDWARDS RIVERPARK 31 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 • To the extent physically feasible, covered bicycle parking will be provided at the two transit stops on Highway 6. The number of covered spaces will be determined jointly by EGO Transit and the Applicant; • Electric outlets will be provided within formal bicycle parking facilities to allow for electric bicycle charging. At a minimum, I 0% of formal bicycle parking shall accommodate electric bicycle charging; • The energy used for the snowmelt of streets and plazas will be in the form of an onsite solar water/gycol system or other renewable sources,which will offset 50% of the energy necessary; • An equal area for recycling and waste diversion as provided for typical trash facilities will be provided within commercial and multiple-family structures within the PUD; • The PUD will allow access to the wetland areas by nonprofit groups involved in environmental education; and • All exterior light fixtures within the PUD will be Dark Sky Compliant. 9. River Access and Public Recreation Access to Eagle River or along its southern shoreline shall allow for individual,public, and non- commercial fishing. Commercial fishing may be allowed and regulated by the Master Association or Metro District. Fishing of the Eagle River within the limits of the PUD will be further regulated by the Districts, in consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, to reduce impacts to wildlife and the sensitive riparian areas. This will include providing reasonable limits on the number of people accessing the Eagle River. An elevated trail or boardwalk and dock is proposed, subject to Army Corps of Engineers regulation that will provide recreational and educational opportunities within PA-1. A Preliminary Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and a Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan for the PUD have been prepared and is included in the appendix of this document. Final review and approval of these documents will be required by the Eagle County prior to the first Final Plat involving any construction activities. 10. Site and Architectural Guidelines The overall intent of the architectural guidelines is to ensure a development that responds as much as possible with the surrounding natural landscape and to ensure building materials and colors that are compatible with Edwards and its mixed use character of institutional, commercial, and residential uses. A final sent of Design Guidelines will be provided for Eagle County review at the first Final Hat. The guidelines shall be consistent with the intent,principles, and EDWARDS RIVERPARK 32 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 standards found herein and generally consistent with the 2009 Urban Design Elements, Appendix B of the Edwards Area Community Plan. A. Site Planning: The PUD site planning has been developed around the topography of the property that remains following the extensive gravel mining that has occurred and the relationship of the property to areas that are designated as wetlands or floodplain areas. Those two elements of the topography have informed the location of the access road leading from Highway 6 and the introduction of a roadway for moving pedestrians and vehicles east and west on the property. Buildings were located as proposed on the conceptual development plan in order to take advantage of views primarily to the north(wetlands and Eagle River), east(Edwards River Preserve and Game Creek Bowl,in Vail), and south (New York range). Additional key open areas and view sheds were considered to provide framing and layering of views from taller buildings over shorter buildings. Multiple-family building#9 envisioned for the property is organized around retail and open plaza areas creating a sense of place and community. The majority of parking is concealed within structures thus removing vehicle parking from the view shed of guests and residents. Building heights are reflective the steep terrain left behind by the mining operation. In order to hide these cuts in the topography, taller buildings have been proposed with no building being proposed at greater than 35' above the respective elevation of Highway 6. North and west of the taller structures are lower structures that allow a stepping down of buildings as they run to the north and to the west, respecting the wetland areas and the existing homes west of the PUD. Buildings located in PA-5 along the eastern side of the PUD that are adjacent to the Eagle River Preserve shall step down in height to the extent possible but with building heights of 55' or less. B. Architecture generally: Structures and streetscapes that are experienced simultaneously within the same pedestrian or automobile view shed shall display a complementary architectural style and theme. Exterior materials, colors, openings, roof styles and other visible details and features shall be considered. Building form in the vertical dimension should be rational,with strong foundation elements supporting lighter structures above. North and west facing facades are design at four stories or less along internal streets and pedestrian ways to create a human scale. Intermediate roof forms, awnings, and greater overall setbacks could also be used to the goal of human scale. Additionally, building facades shall be broken horizontally to provide relief from the length of the building, if over 100'. This should be accomplished with changes in the plane of building EDWARDS RIVERPARK 33 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 facades. Changes in the use of fenestration, balconies, and variation in materials and color may also be necessary to achieve the goal of reducing the perceived mass of a building. On these larger buildings, a minimum of two to three materials shall be provided to again help reduce the mass of these buildings. The type and form of roofs should enhance building architecture. A variety of roof forms are allowed throughout the PIJD but there should be a consistency within smaller micro- neighborhoods within the PUD and Planning Areas. Taller multiple family buildings may have sloping roofs, flat roofs with parapets, or some logical combination of roof elements that allow for a complete and cohesive design. Awnings and intermediate roof forms will be considered to add articulation and reduce the perceived scale of the structure. Parapets and/or other architectural features will be included on buildings with flat roofs to screen rooftop vents and mechanical equipment from pedestrian area and immediately proximate travel route viewsheds. The PUD will incorporate solar energy components into building design to the greatest extent practical and to orient and design buildings, building windows and entrances and building roofs to maximize opportunities for the collection of(and shading from) solar radiation to the extent possible. The materials, textures,patterns, colors and other treatments used in the design of buildings and public space are critical to the establishment of a unique, attractive character and sense of place. Life cycle costs should be carefully considered to ensure products are durable and easy to maintain in the long-term, reducing energy consumption and ensuring safe, attractive structures far into the future. Colors used on building exteriors will reflect consideration of the natural environment as well as the nearby built environment. • • A palette of wood, metal, glass, stone, brick, cementitious wall board, composite cladding and panels, and/or stucco will be used in building architecture. Exterior materials should be high quality and durable, requiring minimal long-term maintenance. Different materials and/or surface treatments on the same building will be separated by architectural or structural features. The PUD will use building elements such as awnings, canopies, eaves, columns,planters, moldings, changes in paving material, or other treatments to define building entrances. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 34 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Architectural treatments of above ground structured parking shall be utilized to ensure the objectives and policies of the 2009 Urban Design Elements, Appendix B of the Edwards Area Community Plan are achieved, including,but not limited to, Objective 24.3 -Parking and Objective 23.5 -Exterior Finishes. To avoid a narrow "canyon effect" buildings on the primary access road into the PUD,buildings in PA-5 and PA-4 shall have separation at the first three stories of at least approximately 30 ft. to 40 ft. and at the upper stories of at least approximately 60 ft. to 80 ft. This is not to say that there cannot be portions of buildings that are less than these separations,but it is intent is to avoid longer facades that create building height relationship with buildings on the opposite side of the street that is too narrow and uncomfortable for motorists and pedestrians. Additionally, the general policies of the 2009 Urban Design Elements,Appendix B of the Edwards Area Community Plan shall generally be achieved, including but not limited to Objective 23.2 - Building Setbacks and Objective 23.3 -Pedestrian Scale. C. Architecture along Highway 6: In order to provide significant light and air between building forms along Highway 6 and to prevent long, unbroken facades, along this frontage, there shall be horizontal separations between building forms representing approximately 20% of the entire frontage of the PUD. The spaces that will exist between the buildings will be landscape areas or plazas conceptually existing on top of a parking structure below. In some cases, these open areas may have one story improvements like walls,fences, and gazebos (or similar structures) to enhance the usability of the spaces. Buildings located along the Highway 6 frontage (within 50' of the Highway 6 right-of-way), shall utilize wall and window systems with adequate insulation, such that normal noise levels within the units are generally 50 dBA or less as is provided in a typical unit. D. Building Design Adjacent to Eagle River Preserve: Buildings located in PA-5 and PA-7 located directly adjacent to the Eagle River Preserve along the east property line of the PUD, shall be developed to reduce impacts to wildlife by reducing the impacts of humans and noise. Balconies and decks on the exterior of the building in excess of 3' in depth shall be limited to 20% of the facade facing east. Patio,pool, and hot tub areas located in close proximity to the Eagle River Preserve shall be equipped with walls or screens to attenuate noise produced in these areas. Walkways and breezeways shall be planned in a manner sensitive to impacts to wildlife located on the Eagle River Preserve. To the extent possible,walkways intended for frequent use shall be avoided in close proximity to the east property line of the PUD. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 35 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 E. Seasonal Event Center: The seasonal event center shall be a two-story structure in a rustic architecture style utilizing wood and stone siding that is benched into the hillside as to limit its visibility directly east from the Eagle River Preserve to a maximum of a one-story facade.The roof material shall blend in with the building and site to offer a more camouflaged appearance. 11 . Open Space and Landscape Guidelines The overall intent of the landscape guidelines is to ensure a neighborhood that blends as much as possible with the Edwards community and to buffer the buildings neighboring properties. The property is currently an unreclaimed gravel mining facility where the natural landscape of the development areas has been extremely altered. The bulk of the PUD is occupied by floodplain and wetland areas that are being appropriately protected. The wetland areas will dominate the landscape approach to the property by leaving these areas largely undisturbed. PA-7 and PA-9 are being provided as open areas with seasonal closures to allow for wildlife movements within the PUD and adjacent lands. In the non-closure periods, there will be passive recreational use and access as well as the Seasonal Event Center on PA-7. Both PA-7 and PA-9 maybe be developed with park-like improvements. Open areas are provided in PA-8 and PA-10 to allow usable recreation activities including,but not limited to,playgrounds, open areas for sports, improved recreation, fenced dog park, and passive areas. Plant materials will be strategically placed to provide the maximum usefulness and to soften the transitions from paved areas to soft landscape areas. All landscape areas shall be appropriately irrigated with efficient drip irrigation systems and the limited use of spray irrigation systems to provide a very water efficient system consistent with the goals and policies of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. All landscape areas shall require soil amendments to improve water retention and reduce irrigation needs. The minimum tree and plant sizes shall be in accordance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations. All disturbed areas shall be restored or landscaped within 90 days of disturbance. Frontage: The primary frontage of the PUD shall be attractively landscaped and maintained since this portion of the property is the most visible to travelers along Highway 6. The minimum quantity EDWARDS RIVERPARK 36 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 of trees to be provided within 50' of this frontage shall be at a rate of one tree per twenty lineal feet of roadway frontage. Landscaping within gas pipeline easements shall be reviewed and approved by Black Hills Energy prior to submission to Eagle County. Boundary with Eagle River Preserve: In PA-5, to ensure an adequate level of landscape buffer adjacent to the Eagle River Preserve, the minimum quantity of trees to be provided along this boundary shall be at a rate of one tree per twenty lineal feet of the common property boundary. Wildfire Protection and Defensible Space: The property is located in an area of low wildfire threat. All proposed landscape materials and locations on the site shall be reviewed and approved by Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist. Landscape Materials: Landscape materials shall be limited to those species recommended by the Colorado State University Extension for the region. Landscape Plan: The landscape treatment for the PUD shall be generally consistent with the landscape plan submitted with the PUD which is attached to and made part of this PUD Guide. Drainage: Stormwater runoff will be captured and treated prior to discharging from the site using best management practices. Use of bio swales and other mechanical devices, such as water quality detention vaults with mechanical water treatment devices, will be used to ensure appropriate stormwater runoff quality. The maintenance, operation, monitoring, and funding of water quality vaults,facilities, and devices will be the responsibility of the Metro District or Master Association. A water quality management plan shall be developed prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the property. This plan shall be approved by Eagle County Engineering. 12. Open Space and Common Area Maintenance All common areas, roadways, and open spaces area will be owned and maintained by one of the following: Metro District, Master Association, or in the case of common areas included within a Condominium parcel, the individual property owner's association. All roadways,bike lanes, paths, trails and sidewalks shall be owned and maintained by one of these PUD entities. All roadways,bike lanes,paths, trails and sidewalks shall be maintained free of snow to allow EDWARDS RIVERPARK 37 • DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 adequate access throughout the PUD, along the frontage of Highway 6, and including the bus stop facilities. 13. Riparian Plans and Wetland Buffer A. Riparian Plans: The Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and Wetland Protection and Access Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by Eagle County prior to approval of the first final plat for the PUD involving any construction activities. See Section 22 for the process by which these plans can be revised once adopted. B. Wetland Buffers: Wetland buffer areas have been created as shown on the Building Envelope Plan attached as an appendix to this PUD Guide. The wetland buffer areas perform a variety of functions including the filtering of stormwater and preventing human and other disturbances to the wetlands themselves. Width of Buffers: The wetland buffers shall be a minimum of 50'from the wetland boundary in PA-2, PA-7, PA-8, and PA-10 and a minimum of 15' from the wetland boundary or 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater,in PA-6. In PA-6, above-grade improvements, with either cantilevered or with supporting columns, are allowed to encroach into the wetland buffer area as represented in the Preliminary Plan. Improvements allowed and prohibited within buffers post development: Once established, only appropriate native vegetation recommended by the Colorado Natural Areas Program, or native species recommended by an ecologist and known to occur in Eagle County are permitted. Temporary irrigation is permitted for the establishment of the buffer; however, no permanent irrigation is allowed. This area shall be maintained as a natural landscape buffer and shall not contain sod or turf grasses. Drainage swales and stormwater management infrastructure may be installed. Use of herbicides and pesticides shall be limited per the Riparian Management Plan. Other uses allowed within the buffer areas include improved community footpaths providing access through PA-2 and PA-6 to the boardwalk, through PA-5 to connect to the community path in PA-7, and through PA-7 for fishing access to Eagle River. Below grade utilities, drainage, and stormwater infrastructure are allowed within the buffer area. Decks and building EDWARDS RIVERPARK 38 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 overhangs are allowed to encroach over the wetland buffer only in PA-6 and include supporting columns within the buffer area in accordance with the Preliminary Plan. Fences and landscape berms are allowed within the buffer area. Improved park areas, seating areas, and foot paths(except those community paths identified herein)shall not be allowed within the buffer area. No building envelopes, structures, foundations, or any excavation necessary for foundations and footers for vertical construction shall be permitted within the wetland buffer once the buffer is established. The wetland buffer areas shall be developed with required barriers and signage as described in the Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan. If annual monitoring of wetland buffers identifies encroachment areas into the wetland buffers by property owners or users, construction activities, utility work, or similar activities,corrective action shall be taken per Section 21 of the PUD Guide. Wetland protection during construction: Wetland protection measures as described in the Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan will be adhered to during construction. These measures include BMPs such as silt fencing, stormwater filtering, bioswales, and rain gardens. Fencing,berming, and other measures to prevent access to the wetlands will also be used. Wetland buffer establishment during construction: As construction of the PUD occurs and wetland buffer areas have been regraded, the wetland buffers will be established to a post development condition. 14. Wildlife Mitigation Measures and Eagle River Preserve Interface The PUD is located in an area with wildlife activity as referenced in the Environmental Impact Report and the Wildlife Habitat Assessment submitted with the application to establish this PUD. Mitigation measures provided herein are intended to help mitigate the indirect impacts of the PUD and construction activities related to the development of the PUD. Master Association bylaws shall also include these mitigation measures to help ensure compliance and provide for an additional layer of enforcement. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 39 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 A. Elk, Deer, Mountain Lions, and Bears: The following wildlife mitigation measures shall be adhered to: • Utilize bear-proof dumpsters or containers for any garbage that is generated within the PUD. Furthermore, use bear-proof containers for trash during the construction period and prohibit workers from leaving food or other bear attractants onsite; • Prohibit construction workers and contractors from bringing pets on the work site; • Shield and direct all lighting fixtures downward to minimize light pollution on adjacent wildlife habitats; • Construct fences in a wildlife-friendly manner that eliminates the chance of entanglement and impalement of wildlife attempting to jump fences. Avoid pointed pickets and strands of wire at the top of perimeter fencing; and • Prohibit fruit, nut, and berry producing trees and shrubs in landscape designs. • Include rules within property owner association documents to address bear-aware practices including: feeding pets indoors, cleaning grills after use, not using bird feeders during summer months; and not composting food waste outdoors. • Community gardens are prohibited unless fenced with exclusionary electric fencing approved by CPW District Wildlife Managers. • No development along the river's edge is anticipated with this development due to the presence of wetlands and the 75' stream setback. • The development of this PUD will adhere to any laws imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • A landscape berm or other visual screen shall be developed within or adjacent to PA-9 to allow for visual separation of residential development in PA-2 to the areas to the west where Elk, Deer, and other wildlife are migrating north and south,to and from the Eagle River corridor and open areas. B. Bald Eagle's Nest: There is evidence of a bald eagle's nest located on adjacent property to this PUD but not within , the PUD itself. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a "take"permit(M&I3106C-0) to allow disturbance of up to two-bald eagles due to potential abandonment of the eagle nest during the course of development of the PUD. A required monitoring program has been put in place pursuant to this permit. The PUD includes a dock that is located in close proximity to the Eagle's nest. If the Eagle's nest is occupied or being used by Bald Eagle's as of April 15th of any year, the use of the dock will be delayed until July 31. If the nest is unoccupied or used as of April 15, not additional closure shall be required. The boardwalk and dock are closed each year on the same schedule as the seasonal closures for the Eagle River Preserve. If at some point it is determined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife or the Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service that the nest has been abandoned, no mitigation measures or seasonal use closures shall be required. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 40 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 C. Great Blue Heron Nesting Complex: There is evidence of a great blue heron nesting complex located on an adjacent property and which is within 1,600' of the eastern edge of the PUD. No mitigation activities are required for this nesting complex. D. River otter and northern leopard frog: The applicant shall conduct river otter and northern leopard frog surveys of the property to detect the presence of these species of State Special Concern prior to the commencement of construction related to the boardwalk or dock. CPW will be consulted regarding any changes or mitigation measures required for the boardwalk and dock improvements. E. Pet Regulations: The Homeowner Associations shall adopt and enforce pet regulations to limit the number of pets allowed on the property and any restrictions necessary to prevent nuisance issues. These requirements shall be considered the minimum level of regulation for this PUD. Pets shall always be on leash when outdoors on the property and under direct owner supervision and control. Pets shall not be left unattended in common areas or on outdoor porches or balconies. Pet waste shall be removed by dog owners immediately and disposed of in proper containers which are located throughout the property and boardwalk. Domestic cats shall not be allowed outdoors unless on a leash. At least one designated dog park will be developed on the property. Seasonal closures of PA-1, PA-7, and PA-9,the boardwalk, and the dock area with respect to access by dogs on leash shall be consistent with such closures required for the Eagle River Preserve. F. Habitat Enhancement Plan: The Owner/Applicant, Master Association, or Metropolitan Districts will establish and oversee a Wildlife Enhancement Fund account that will collect a real estate transfer fee equal to 0.2%of the sales price of any residential dwelling unit within the PUD,whether deed restricted for workforce housing. This Fund will be administered by a board established by the Metro District with members appointed by the Applicant/Owner, Master Association, or Metro Districts (the "Board"). The funds will be held in a segregated account at a local banking institution. The Board of the Fund will be appointed prior to approval of the first Final Plat for the PUD. The funds collected will be used to fund enhancements that benefit wildlife habitat including, but not limited to, communication and education efforts directed to residents and visitors,water quality improvements, appropriate vegetation management in open space and wetland areas, fisheries improvements, wildlife enhancements, and stream enhancements. The funds may not be used for the initial construction and establishment of the wetland buffers and corresponding EDWARDS RIVERPARK 41 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 barrier treatments, including initial signage. The funds may not be used to fund the initial baseline reports related to the wetlands. The funds can be used for riparian restoration and corrective action post construction and establishment to address areas of concern identified in annual monitoring reports. The funds may also be used for updating signage as part of annual community engagement and educational efforts coordinated by the Board post construction and establishment. The Board will seek advice and input from Colorado Parks and Wildlife before funding any habitat enhancements. Colorado Parks and Wildlife may also present funding requests to the Board for consideration in response to impacts identified through annual monitoring conducted independently from the annual monitoring required in the PUD Guide and Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan. The funds may be used onsite or within twenty-five miles of the PUD. The allocation of funds for communication and education of residents and visitors shall be included annually and should be considered a priority in the allocation of funds given the impact that human behavior can have on wildlife. G. Winter Closure: In order to maximize the use of the wetland areas within the PUI)by wintering wildlife, such as deer and elk, PA-1, PA-7, and PA-9 will be subject to a winter closure to access from December 1st until April 15th or as determined by Eagle County Open Space managers as recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The closure is intended to reduce wildlife interactions with humans and pets. See Section 14 B above related to the Eagle's Nest. H. Construction Closure: Heavy construction activities such as excavation, the installation of roads and similar infrastructure, and construction of the boardwalk and dock shall be restricted from November 15 to April 15 of each year. Development of buildings and vertical development may occur year round. I. Boardwalk and Dock Construction: The boardwalk and dock are approximately 2,400 f.t in total length. The boardwalk and dock will be developed with modular sections in certain locations to help prevent usage during seasonal closures and allow for the passage of wildlife. The locations of these few modular sections shall be coordinated with CPW prior to construction. The boardwalk will be developed as close to grade as possible while still allowing for flood waters to pass underneath to boardwalk. The height from grade is anticipated to be approximately 18"but in no case greater than 30" from grade. The design shall generally be without handrails but will allow for railings in certain locations, such as the end of the dock,to prevent unwanted access into the wetland area or allow for educational signage. The boardwalk and dock are subject to Army Corps of Engineers permitting and approval. Educational signage shall be provided adjacent to the boardwalk and shall be developed with consultation with CPW. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 42 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 J. Amplified Sound: No exterior amplified sound shall be allowed within the PUD for the period one hour after dusk to one hour before dawn daily except during the period of the year outside of the seasonal wildlife closure. K. Eagle River Preserve Access: The PUD shall establish a 20'wide access easement from the nearest roadway right-of-way within the PUD to a location long the joint property line with Eagle River Preserve as identified by Eagle County within PA-7 for the purpose of connecting to the Eagle River Preserve from the PUD. If pedestrian access is approved by the Eagle Valley Land Trust from the PUD onto Eagle River Preserve, it shall be developed by the Applicant/Owner and in accordance with the standards required by Eagle County. If a 6' wide pedestrian path is developed onto the Eagle River Preserve, it shall be funded by the PUD and developed in the first phase of development. Any access is subject to the seasonal wildlife closures as indicated herein. L. Fencing Adjacent to Eagle River Preserve: In order to prevent human access across the Eagle River Preserve, except in locations designated by Eagle County,wildlife appropriate fencing shall be established along the entire common boundary,where necessary, with the Eagle River Preserve in the first phase of development with long term management and maintenance by the Metro District or Master Association required. The fence shall be developed in accordance with the detail below with posts at a minimum of 16' intervals or any other design acceptable to Colorado Parks and Wildlife: _y • I 1 Smooth(Imam visibility w cover,ith a PVC cover,high-risibility wire,flagging,or a top rail.) ) f Barbed 42� Maximum -- r f( Ba� 1 i ♦ t r 14 i IL. Smooth r rj t IDEAL WILDLIFE-FRIENDLY FENCEter ji,41 The Metro District and/or Master Association shall enforce access restrictions. M. Landscaping to help screen PUD from Eagle River Preserve: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 43 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 In order to provide significant screening and positive landscape benefits to the Eagle River Preserve, the Applicant/Owner shall provide landscape improvements and additional reclamation activities within the Eagle River Preserve in accordance with the Proposed Offsite Landscape Improvement Plan. The Applicant/Owner shall be financially responsible for all aspects of the improvements including, reclamation and restoration, soil amendment, tree and vegetation installation, temporary irrigation (up to 5 years as necessary), maintenance and survival of trees and irrigation for a number of years as determined by Eagle County, and removal of barbed wire fencing in the affected areas. These improvements are subject to approval by Eagle County and Eagle Valley Land Trust pursuant to the existing conservation easement affecting the property. A comprehensive planting and stabilization plan for the landscape improvements to the Eagle River Preserve and a proposal for the connector trail alignment and design shall be provided to Eagle County Open Space and Eagle Valley Land Trust for review and approval prior to the first Final Plat application. The connection trail shall align with previously approved management plans for the Eagle River Preserve. Any major deviation from the identified location may require approval from EVLT and the Vail Valley Foundation.The plan shall include cost estimates of work proposed and shall be collateralized as public improvements within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the first Final Plat for the PUD. 15. Signs, Lighting, and Hours of Operation A. Lighting: The intent of the exterior lighting is to provide the minimum lighting to meet building code and allow appropriate lighting of parking areas and common areas. All lighting will be down lighting with fixtures that are fully cut-off in order to protect the night sky. All fixtures shall be Dark Sky compliant. No light fixture will be mounted at a height of 25' above grade on the exterior of buildings except as necessary for stairs, entries to buildings,balconies on dwelling units, and roof top amenity areas. Pole lighting not to exceed 20' in height and pedestrian level lighting shall be allowed in parking areas,plazas and open space areas. All building permits for development along the perimeter of the PUD shall be required to submit a photometric plan demonstrating zero light trespass from exterior light fixtures at the PUD boundary to ensure compliance with the PUD Guide. All pedestrian and open space lighting within PA-9, PA-1 and PA-7 shall be turned off during seasonal closure requirements to limit impacts to wildlife. B. Residential and Commercial Signage: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 44 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 All signage within the PUD shall comply with the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations except as prescribed herein. The Master Association or Districts may adopt a master sign program for the entire PUD or specific Planning Areas within the PUD at any time. A master sign program shall be subject to review by Eagle County as a Minor Modification. 16. Water, Sewer, and Water Rights The PUD is located within the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District(ERWSD) for wastewater(sewer) treatment and in the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERWA)for water service. Additionally, the applicant will pay in-lieu for water rights. The Applicant/Owner shall complete the UERWA's water rights dedication process upon approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and this PUD Guide and prior to the submittal of a Final Plat for the PUD.An Ability to Serve Letter must be obtained from UERWA prior to application for the first Final Plat for the PUD. Edwards RiverPark is committed to the responsible and efficient use of our water supply. Water is an invaluable natural resource that sustains the strong economic and social vitality of the mountain community in Eagle County and must be conserved wherever possible. In order to reduce the overall demand and impact on this water resource, Edwards RiverPark shall adhere to an indoor and outdoor water usage budget goal as negotiated with the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. A. Water Quantity Measures: Indoor water fixtures and outdoor irrigation fixtures will use the latest technologies and be water use efficient fixtures. Commercial and residential fixtures, including but not limited to, toilets, urinals, shower heads, faucets,irrigation controllers shall be certified by the EPA's Water Sense program, or have an equivalent rating. Other irrigation devices, such as spray sprinkler bodies shall be rated for efficiency and low flow. All water using residential appliances, such as • dishwashers, ice machines, and washing machines, shall be certified by the Energy Star program. This will reduce water needs for the project and to reduce water rights expenses as well. Final water requirements and limitations will be determined by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority(UERWA) and owner. This will reduce water needs for the project and to reduce water rights expenses as well. Final water requirements and limitations will be determined by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority(UERWA) and owner. A process will be established working with the staff of UERWA to ensure that the water budget is maintained and tracked on a phase by phase basis for the PUD. Actual use data from developed phases of the PUD will be used to track future allocations and to enforce prior allocations should a prior phase be exceeding prior water budgets. Corrections within prior phases may be required prior to allowing a future phase to commence. This process will ensure that the water budget for the PUD is adhered to. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 45 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Indoor Water Usage: Edwards River Park is committed to the responsible and efficient use of our water supply.Water is an invaluable natural resource that sustains the strong economic and social vitality of the mountain community in Eagle County and must be conserved wherever possible. In order to reduce the overall demand and impact on this water resource, Edwards River Park shall adhere to an indoor usage water budget goal of no more than the allocated amount of water that was dedicated to each dwelling unit in the Water Rights Dedication to the Authority for the development.The Applicant/Owner and/or its appointed management team shall be responsible for managing indoor use to this limit. Any use in excess of this goal may be subject to an excess use fee as determined by the Authority. See table below showing indoor water use by month outlining the project's goals. Edwards River Park PUD Indoor Total Demand limits 73.0 Residential T 3fiU' e 7:1 M ®®10.6 ®00 ®®®®®®®®®® 7r3'1000.0620 ® 6 ' ai '411:111121®®®1131®®maincomixas® milt11 ®®®.� 127.R k ®®® 137E.Eunizem r. aztaurammina Commercial Use .-411111311111111111111112311 �� v , u` Z ®®®®®®®ca®®®® 175.2 292.0 9i ssaq ' ®1 ®®® 2,585.0®®®®®®® 27 „41:0®®®®®®®®®®® 9.527" 'k ys "� ®®®®®®®® 2.09 ®® 1470 Nvumes 32q Muhi hmgy Unhi 16 Eupk.es/sin3le kmlN.leO<mpkyee gousik,2„000 sgll W rctYl,3,000 sgfl MOMm.nE mMereme spa[e,aM i.see sqh of Gayare mo B. Irrigation Plan and System Requirements: The purpose of this section of the PUD guide is to establish requirements related to outdoor water use efficiency requirements. Additionally, this section establishes a maximum allowable outdoor water use limit for the development to insure this development does not exceed its outdoor water allocation as established by the dedication of Water Rights by Eagle County and the Water Service Agreement between the Edwards River Park(Applicant/Owner), Eagle County(County) and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority(Authority). 'The maximum limit is enforceable by the Authority and the County. Specifically, Edwards River Park will not exceed 5.5 acre-feet of EDWARDS RIVERPARK 46 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 outdoor water use in any year after the second growing season. The Applicant/Owner and/or its appointed management team shall be responsible for managing outdoor use to this limit.Any use in excess of this goal may be subject to an excess use fee as determined by the Authority. The following monthly budget is based upon a total irrigated area of 4.4 acres or 191,664 square feet: Table 1. Outdoor Irrigation Water Application by Month for the Edwards River Park KCgal 257 404 460 368 257 46 1792 *Based on maximum irrigated commitment from the Authority The Authority recognizes that new plant installations and revegetation of disturbed native areas will require additional irrigation application for establishment that will exceed the outdoor irrigation budget amounts in the first two growing seasons. Therefore, the Authority will allow for temporary establishment irrigation through an irrigation permit as issued by the Authority's Customer Service department. C. Documentation: The following documentation is required for the Edwards RiverPark PUD. The Authority and County reserves the right to conduct audits as deemed necessary. Audits will be conducted if there is any indication that the criteria have not been followed. 1. The Irrigation Documentation Package: The Irrigation Documentation Package shall include the following four(4) elements: a. Project information i) Date of Submission ii) Project contacts for the project applicant, landscape and irrigation system installer, and property owner iii) Project address (if available,parcel and/or lot number(s)) iv) Total irrigated area (square feet) each for both permanent and temporary areas. 2. Applicant signature and date with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the Edwards RiverPark Irrigation Plan and System Requirements found in Section 16 of the PUD Guide and submit a complete Irrigation Documentation Package". EDWARDS RIVERPARK 47 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 3. Landscape Design Plan with Soil Information: a. All applicable soil criteria and standards shall be noted on the landscape design plan. b. A soil analysis report and associated information shall be provided if the project applicant chooses to appeal the standard soil amendment criteria. 4. Irrigation Plan D. Compliance with the Irrigation Documentation Package: 1. Prior to construction,Authority and/or County shall: a. Review the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package submitted by the project applicant. b. Approve or deny the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package. c. Issue a building permit or approve the plan check/design review for the project applicant. 2. Prior to construction, the project applicant shall: a. Submit a Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package to the Authority and the County. b. Receive the authorization to proceed from the Authority and the County. 3. After construction and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Authority and/or the County shall: a. Conduct an inspection and review the irrigation audit report at the request of the applicant to ensure compliance with the approved plans. E. Irrigation Plan Requirements: This section applies to landscaped areas requiring permanent irrigation. To ensure the efficient use of water, the irrigation system shall be designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with best management practices outlined in current edition of Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices by the Irrigation Association and the American Society of Irrigation Consultants. 1. Irrigation Plan Contents: The Irrigation Plan, at a minimum, shall contain: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 48 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 • A scaled plan showing property lines, easements, existing or proposed structures, impervious surfaces, and existing natural features; • Location and size of the point of connection to the water supply and meter location(s) along with static water pressure at the point of connection to the water supply and dynamic water pressure for proper system operation; • Installation details for each of the irrigation system components: • Location, type and size of all components of the irrigation system, including, backflow preventer, smart irrigation controllers, main and lateral lines, manual valves, remote control valves, sprinkler heads, moisture sensing devices, rain switches, quick couplers,pressure regulators; • An irrigation legend showing the type of irrigation components; • Specification sheets including, at a minimum, the following information shall he provided for each type of irrigation component: Flow rate (gallons per minute), application rate (inches per hour), design operating pressure (pressure per square inch)for each irrigation zone; c Information demonstrating that all irrigation emission devices meet the requirements set in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, ASABE/1CC 802-2014 "Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler and Emitter Standard" authored by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers and the International Code Council must also be submitted. • Clear indication of separate irrigation system zones; • Hydrozones must be clearly indicated; • Installation legend showing the quantity and type of plant; • Required irrigation application rate for each type of plant; • Clear indication of all temporary above ground irrigation components and zones 2. Irrigation System and Planting Installation Requirements: a. Irrigation System Design Requirements • Sprinkler spacing shall be designed to achieve the highest possible distribution uniformity using the manufacturer's recommendations. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 49 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 • All sprinkler heads installed in the turfgrass areas shall have a distribution uniformity of 0.65 or higher using the protocol defined in ASABE/ICC 802-2014 standard. • The landscape and irrigation design shall prevent water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation on existing landscapes by prohibiting runoff from leaving the target landscape due to low- head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property,non-irrigated areas,walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. • Each remote control valve shall irrigate a hydrozone with similar microclimate, soil conditions, slope, and plant materials with similar water demand. • Relevant soils information such as soil type and infiltration rate shall be utilized when designing irrigation systems. • Narrow or irregularly shaped areas, including turfgrass areas,less than eight feet in dimension in any direction shall not utilize overhead sprinkler irrigation. • Slopes greater than 25'4) shall not use sprinklers with an application rate exceeding 0.75 inches per hour unless irrigation designer specifies an alternative design or technology and clearly demonstrates no runoff or erosion will occur. • Sprinkler heads and other emission devices shall be selected based on what is appropriate for the plants and soil type within that hydrozone. Individual hydrozones that mix high and low water use plants shall not be permitted. Minimum pop-up height for sprinklers in turfgrass areas shall be four inches. • Check valves or anti-drain valves are required on sprinkler heads where low-point drainage could occur. • Low flow irrigation system shall apply irrigation water via point source emitters, dripper lines,microsprays and/or bubblers as appropriate for any mulched planting areas for any vegetation that will exceed 12 inches mature height. • Low flow irrigation system zones shall have an indicator valve to verify that zone is pressurized appropriately. • Where feasible, trees shall be placed on separate valves from shrubs, groundcovers, and turfgrass to facilitate the appropriate irrigation of EDWARDS RIVERPARK 50 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 trees. The mature size and extent of the root zone shall be considered when designing irrigation for the tree. • Temporary above ground irrigation to reestablish native vegetation of disturbed areas shall be on separate zones from permanent irrigation system • Temporary Irrigation shall be physically removed after two growing seasons. • b. Required Irrigation System Components: • Backflow prevention devices shall be required to protect the potable water supply from contamination by the irrigation system and comply with local plumbing codes. • Manual shut-off valves shall be required to minimize water loss in case of an emergency or routine repair at the following locations: As close as possible to the point of connection of the water supply • On sections of larger systems to isolate zones • Dedicated landscape water meter(s)shall be installed. • Smart irrigation controllers labeled by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Water Sense Program or with published reports posted on the Smart Water Application Technologies website. • The controller shall have flow meters and be able to use inputs from the flow meter/sensor to control irrigation if flows are abnormal. • Controllers should be programed to adhere to the Authority's most current outdoor water use schedule. • Sensors that detect rain, freeze,wind, and soil moisture shall be installed with the capability to alter irrigation system operation as appropriate for Edwards, CO climatic conditions given unfavorable weather conditions or when sufficient soil moisture is present. • Pressure controls and appurtenances to meet the required operating pressure of the emission devices within the manufacturer's recommended pressure range for optimal performance. 3. Irrigation System Maintenance and Management: EDWARDS RIVERPARK 51 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Irrigation management includes planning water use,monitoring water use and verifying that equipment is maintained and properly adjusted for optimal performance. As the landscape matures, adjustments to the system shall be in harmony with the original intent of the irrigation design. Scheduling of irrigation events shall match the needs of the plants to maintain health, appearance and meet the function of the landscape AND adhere to the outdoor watering use regulations of the Authority. Irrigation systems shall be maintained to ensure proper operation and function for water use efficiency. For the efficient use of water, all irrigation schedules shall be developed, managed, and evaluated to utilize the minimum amount of water required to maintain plant health. Irrigation scheduling shall be regulated by smart irrigation controllers that utilize evapotranspiration data or soil moisture data. If operation of the system is not in accordance with monthly irrigation limits, the Applicant/Owner will perform an irrigation system audit and implement recommendations as necessary to meet limits. 4. Irrigation System Verification: Proper installation of the landscape and irrigation system shall conform to the Irrigation Plan approved by the Authority and County. Testing of the irrigation system will be completed by the Authority and/or the County and will require an Irrigation System Audit prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The following Documentation is required: a. Irrigation System Audit • All Irrigation System audits shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor. Irrigation audits shall not be conducted by the person or company who installed the irrigation system. • The cost of the Audit will be covered by the Applicant/Owner • The project applicant shall submit an irrigation audit report to the Authority and the County. The irrigation audit report shall include, but is not limited to following unless reasonable justification is provided and approved by the Authority: inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule, including configuring irrigation controllers with application rate, soil types,plant factors, slope, exposure and any other factors necessary for accurate programming. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 52 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 'The Authority may administer programs at the cost of the Applicant/Owner that include, but not be limited to, irrigation water use analysis, irrigation audits, and irrigation surveys for compliance with the Water Budget. b. Irrigation System Performance Bond • A$500 irrigation system performance bond shall be required to ensure the irrigation system is installed per plan. • Bond is required before commencement of irrigation installation. • The bond shall be released upon the once Irrigation System Audit discrepancies have been addressed as determined by the Authority. F. Soil Criteria: 1. Soil Amendment: • Topsoil of irrigated grasses (including turf), shrubs, perennials,and annuals shall be a sandy loam to a depth of at least 6 inches (6") containing at least 5 percent(5%) organic matter by volume. • Tree soil shall have a minimum depth of 3 feet(3') or shall be a minimum planting hole diameter of two (2)times as large as the root ball diameter. Both topsoil and subsoil layers shall be sandy loam. The top soil shall be at least 6 inches(6") and have 5 percent (5%) organic matter by weight and subsoil shall have at least one to three percent (1 - 3%) organic matter by weight. • A minimum of four(4) cubic yards of organic matter soil amendment per one-thousand square feet of landscaped area shall be required as necessary to meet or exceed the 5 percent(5%) organic matter specification. • Soil amendment organic matter shall consist of either Class I and Class II compost. 2. Soil Preparation: • Amendment shall be tilled to a minimum depth of six inches (6"). • Site shall be graded to within two-tenths of a foot (2/10th')of the grading plan. • Site shall be free of rocks and debris over one inch (1") diameter in size. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 53 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 • Site shall be free of dirt clods over three-quarter inch(3/4") diameter in size. Dryland seed areas may contain dirt clods up to two inch (2") diameter in size. • Stockpiling- Stripping and stockpiling of indigenous soil (topsoil) shall be required during construction. The replacement of this soil,plus additional soil amendments, are critical to successful plant material establishment, ongoing health, and efficient use of water through the life of the project. • All applicable soil criteria and standards shall be noted on the landscape design plan. Written verification of approved soil amendment type and volume is required. Projects with inadequate soil amendment and preparation will not be approved. 3. Soil Inspection: • Soil inspections prior to installation of plant material may be conducted by the County and UERWA as deemed necessary and shall include a review of adherence to all criteria and performance standards. • Written documentation reflecting approved volume and type of soil amendment, such as compost delivery batch tickets, is required upon inspection. 4. Organic Mulch: • Shall be applied at one (1)cubic yard per eighty(80) square feet at a depth of four(4) inches, and as appropriate to each species. • Shall be applied to the soil surface, not against the plant stem or high against the base of trunks to minimize disease. • Organic mulch material includes bark and wood chips. Avoid mulch consisting of construction debris such as pallets. 5. Inorganic Mulch: • Inorganic mulch includes rock, gravel, or pebbles. • Rock mulch shall have a minimum depth of two inches (2"). 17. Conservation Easements The Applicant/Owner shall grant conservation easements restricting the land located in PA-1, PA-7, and PA-9 in perpetuity. All conservation easements must recognize the uses permitted EDWARDS RIVERPARK 54 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D0784 within this PUD Guide that affect these Planning Areas. In the case of PA-7, the extent of the easement may be reduced to exclude the seasonal event center, as determined by an appropriate Land Trust nonprofit. 18. Road Impact Fees Road impact fees will be assessed on development within this PUD pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations pursuant to Section 4-710, Impact Fees, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations including subsection H. 19. School Land Dedication Fees This PUD will be responsible for a payment in lieu of providing a land dedication. The amount and timing of payment will be in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The PUD is proposed to be subdivided by multiple final plats in multiple phases. The first Final Plat is anticipated to create a boundary for the entire PUD, create a parcel for PA-1, an open space parcel, and dedicate a parcel (CDOT Parcel) to CDOT for right-of-way. The first Final Plat will also allow for the development of infrastructure. This first Final Plat is not anticipated to create a parcel with any residential dwelling units and therefore,this final plat does not generate an impact or need for school land dedication fees-in-lieu. Subsequent to the first Final Plat, each development parcel will be platted (as a final plat or amended final plat) as an individual development site. As each development parcel is platted, the Applicant/Owner shall pay school land dedication fees associated with the proposed residential development contained within the development parcel being platted, consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In no instance shall a parcel, allowing for development of residential dwelling units, be platted without payment of school land dedication fees in-lieu being received for residential development proposed. This provision clarifies the timing of payment as provided in Eagle County Land Use Regulations and avoids fees being paid for residential dwelling units that are never realized. 20. Phasing The PUD is a multiple phase PUD. It is anticipated to be developed in three primary phases. This phasing schedule is preliminary and subject to change. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 55 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 Phase 1: 50 Multiple family rental apartment units (workforce housing) - PA-3 or 4 200 Multiple family units - PA-5 6,000 sq. ft. Commercial uses - PA-5 and 6 Boardwalk and dock- PA-1 Wildlife friendly fencing along Eagle River Preserve Boundary in PA-5 and PA-7 Highway 6 improvements and internal roadways Total: 250 units Phase 2: 40 Multiple family rental apartment units (workforce housing) - PA-3 or 4 91 Multiple family units- PA-5 5,500 sq. ft. Commercial uses- PA-5 and 6 14 Duplex Units -PA-2 Total: 145 units Phase 3: 45 Multiple family units- PA-3 Total: 45 units 21 . Administration and Enforcement All provisions and requirements of this PUD Guide, Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan, and Wetland Protection and Access Control Plan shall be managed and enforced by the Metro District and Master Association to ensure the PUD is operated and maintained in accordance with the regulations, guidelines,plans, and requirements contained herein. ERWSD and UERWA also reserve the right to enforce water related provisions contained herein including water rights,water use, irrigation, and landscape provisions. 22. Amendments and Modifications It is anticipated that modifications to this PUD Guide will be necessary from time to time as the development of the PUD progresses. An amendment maybe filed only with the approval of the Applicant/Owner, the Commercial property owner, Metro District, or Master Association. The amendment procedures found in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations shall govern EDWARDS RIVERPARK 56 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 amendments to this PUD except as provided below for Minor Modifications. Any amendment which may affect the water usage of the PUD shall be referred to UERWA for approval. Minor Modifications. Subject to the provisions set forth below, Minor Modifications may be authorized by Applicant/Owner, the Commercial property owner, Metro District, or Master Association and approved at the discretion of the Community Development Director without requiring an amendment to the PUD,provided that the changes are similar in nature and impact to the listed permitted uses, consistent with the intent of boundaries of a given parcel, do not • adversely affect wetlands as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers, or affect stream setback requirements. Minor Modifications shall include, without limitation, the following: 1. Internal road and sidewalk alignment alterations subject to approval by the County Engineer; 2. Trails alignment alterations; 3. Technical and engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, subject to approval by the County Engineer; 4. Modifications to development standards, not including building height or perimeter setbacks or parking requirements approved as part of the PUD,which do not have a significant material impact upon the overall intent of the PUD and which allow the improvements to be developed a safe and efficient manner; 5. Shifting, transferring, and relocation of approved density, dwelling units, or commercial uses which does not significantly affect environmental considerations, change the overall intent of the PUD, or have a significant material impact upon adjacent properties. Workforce housing units may be transferred within the PUD provided that the units are constructed in accordance with Section 5 of the PUD Guide; 6. Adjustments to Planning Area boundaries where the modification does not change the overall intent of the PUD nor result in the increase in the overall density approved within the PUD; 7. Additions of land uses not previously itemized in the PUD Guide, but which are found to be similar, consistent, or having similar impacts to or with other uses listed in the PUD Guide; 8. Changes to the phasing schedule, excepted for those improvements identified herein as being required in the first phase including,but not limited to, 50% of the workforce housing, the roundabout and associated road improvements along Highway 6, transit infrastructure, and the improvements to the Eagle River Preserve, including the path connection; Preparation or modifications to wetland and riparian management plans, EDWARDS RIVERPARK 57 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931 D07B4 the Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan, and changes to seasonal area closures; 9. Temporary uses and lay down, if determined by the Community Development Director to be necessary to ensure appropriate review of the proposed uses; 10. Modifications to the basis of elevation for the purpose of measuring building height that do not result in an increase of the basis of elevation; 11. Implementation of a shared parking program; 12. Adoption of a master sign program for the PUD; and 13. Any other minor change that has no effect on the overall intent of the PUD. Appeals of any decision hereunder by the Director of Community Development shall be heard by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to applicable administrative processes. EDWARDS RIVERPARK 58 DocuSign Envelope ID:567FB083-6B6D-4B5A-9C25-2245931D07B4 • 23. PUD Guide Execution IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Eagle County and the Applicant/Owner have executed this PUD Guide as of 01/18/2022 Date effective: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO �-DocuSigned by: /s/ C}4t4""` 174.9 "6A "—CA4AC1 -tAA4/A... Jeanne McQueeney CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DocuSigned by: /S/ F9D62F216898^40. Regina O'Brien , CLERK&RECORDER Sierra Trail Investments LLC r—DocuSigned by: l a4 Novick `-8DUtl11Cunybb4b/.. Keith Novick • ,MEMBER EDWARDS RIVERPARK 59 Appendix: PUD Zoning Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Building Envelope Plan Offsite Landscape Improvement Plan Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan Geologic Hazards Assessment EDWARDS RIVERPARK 60 1 . = C co : A a ;, V/ N N ,,,, `'..'. — 7 ,= N s. R n izo. N Q cD j""'*E '(1 ^ti g y1 DES � ke 3 { , F & O1 0.r X ; vs 'Pill ro cu +` ul 4j1fl � J $� II a r III lIlliea o bad 0 W ¢ t._ .... ..... 1t V i� g ao lin s a a q & "W o-- , z V� `# M th #1 :,, osfls!q I {'Oa �� ` x. 4a4Q 19r W / �1 r ?%'. - Y'a3w bf; "`" K x. .4.r.,; i r deb W C ` rynka 6 r /r.. ;do- ', , 2 �" R f 6 - , .,- -..• . --.2-ir:'‘-':.I'''',,,'''' ..- . .-,,,:#44-,-'.' •.• ,.....! 1 ''': 1 '-'..: 44.-":"'".4-:': ' Olt,.. � /f 'am y _ 'ti • l'- ' . - ":':: :.:::,14-',:. ''-':--;•---. 1-'..-- '-..:11''';'. .- -:'' --' '''''''''' '.i ' '-: *'41'' r Y / . ;/"?/....///. -'''''''''7;4/‘-'11/./„."-'...,*. 4:004/..k.\/7/'s„. -IN \*. . , .... ..........* ,,. . 1 ' 4. 4 . .. . ..,.. „,,,,,,„. . •. .\ , ,. ,„,,k.„ ....,,,, , -494.,,,,•::'...*: •/; --t., -' F.' . --. :-....:,,„:- .. . .. .. . . ,. .. . ,, ... ..,. : ,: .,...•., .. ,.. . . ,......,. . .. . . ...,. , . „... , . „ . .„,,.. ... . . .. :„,.,........ . . ....... .. ,, ...!,.."..4-- y 'i J , { lr.So-r r r' ." t! :1. tae / , 1'r r tra2Ig it'VoTI'�= (TOO 3d013AN3 `ONI41If18 ozoz/zvoi 3ira I ON eor I—N 3N1 SNIL133NI`JN3 13 ZIVa 00 'SOM3 "'"°' '� w )1add d3 � NId1YY nia saaVMas 05 N"rN°Ae SNosNw nra ON enaauo53o 4 8. i 1 it' z Nd p - e `\ 1 i AM3S2!!1N S1321VMCI3 ' ak. '1 �t i' x r i �^�;� "z\:F _ _ _ -fit-^ - - _ l ----------`?tr'' ffil ; w `S � ` I •iN\ • U a (A ' U ` /� Q Q •\ v U /f �2 W ,: O ro k) CO N 4, %;' I I ,j g I jQQ n / ;r I \ � a �a � I y , -; l ;' „ I ;i I , ,„,k,7-- -- . : i ,,,'/ „ I , / ♦. rn . r z r ,r `. r !: 11 hi \ z W rR. �` , wN� ,, I r / - I I I 11 V off. `.Q..(p\s,....,:::4,1 `,. ♦ • t x • I , I 7 0 >\.).\</Nss,,,/:,;‘,;:\\ \, LB. ` �` ,A ,, \ \ `\to CO ,-1 i _ I_1': • c) if ,-...\ ,7.0 ,,„‘\ \ n , `,) 1 ti � I IIIi�; 7. U r _ 1,il,„.; 0 II/ /r I r, / JI a-Q il ;�� Z / fl N ! '1 J 11 11 /� j- ;to , ,� I / a U l— i11 g Q Q -- err a,.--_— _ 1ti ' � 0 0 a ,,, . NOS 1.103N1c11V MAW ov3s) ngtr:117=.7 NVid 3c1013AN3 ONICIiine MA/2 1/01 3.0 ONI ON11,133NION3 I ON eor I-N lair 00 .savAnc33 x ENIld-IV Ni=lb'd IdaAILI SCII:JVMCla e to nark. vi c4 AO SNOISIARI MVO ON MO 031401530 p.„......„........... \1 -.. 7ti h -----,\ - 'j 1 1 , L— --1 w ` ,,. \• , 0 I r• 0 \\ t Z 1 1 i W 1 tli 1 cc?' , s\, , 1 \Lu , ' .', \ \-..., I 4 I \ . 1 i I \ II I 1 V\, /I ) II ii .,, 6 i } ' ' - I I / \ 'I '/ i 1 \ • i 1 ?. / I t 1-20- II.-i''''••• ‘'s 1' I 4 I # : t I I r r •,, r s \ s• • i / I I I V \ • • , i ' 1: I 5 , / / „ I 4 , ) 4 t , '•• i # , c I / g! 11 i, ..., w r ii 211 , x cox / I , / I / .41 Z • 0 yi i , uj(°I 1 I' ( „ ;" k `..,.= '-',L Cr'§ , re ' q I° 1- 6 N i ,? „,4<1 s 1 "• 6 .,,,,,,..\-;,,,,,,,,, r ' f , I 1 , ...,,, ., I i V/1: 1 \-\\,. ',s 01 1 . s .-- \ \\ N) / ' I. ' 1/ 11 .,, ''%-\, 'N • ., co - ‘,., ‘ . / ( , / ii ,. / o re ' ., :, • / I ' 'r 1 H \ / / / ; / , ' i, 4,, / ., , ,- , , ,,, ,, // q 6 k '' .14' / 111 \ 1 ,,,,, , I () - I / II. 1---_____41, / % I , \ X in 0 @ \\\ << q \ . '4,e v 103E b 'p 0 ' \ ,, kL4,-,,----i , ,n •-01 , , 1 , \ ,,, \•,.c) ,,, \O , ,\ 1 1 m,, ' , 4 ,4 „..i t4 it' 1 _ ‘ I_,--- I. -4f: .---\ II I t 4. • * .:744;;.... R j 14 f, I r vTg • 'fir>'. �� y .. s i ? x � 4. x e, 'i ' 1114U' di i `I r • , , ,4; r . I, ‘ .., .5:-,iir 1', ' l il =-h 1,41h itL • fr ,,i, WETLANDS PROTECTION BIRCH ECOLOGY \--41 & ACCSS E CONTROL PLAN EDWARDS RIVERPARK June 22, 2021 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: SIERRA TRAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC 299 MILWAUKEE STREET,SUITE 300,DENVER,co$0206 Prepared by LLC BIRCH ECOLOGY, 429 MAIN STREET,LYONS,CO$0540 '.;:; «, , -, ,. ;".r: °:is 3 ' x.y h} q: c w"`. ...'"viz, ✓' « `r '. s 4 M � 4 C t b PC P S *'{ 'ls"i' R 1 .1. i Y :t. � N WETLANDS PROTECTION AND ACCESS CONTROL PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Physical Methods 3 2.1 Grade Separation 3 2.2 Barriers 8 2.3 Vegetation Screens 12 3.0 Regulatory Strategies 14 4.0 Economic Strategies 15 5.0 Education &Outreach 16 References 19 1 .0 INTRODUCTION Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan Protection of the wetlands and riparian habitats at Edwards RiverPark is a high priority and will contribute to a balanced land use for the project site when the formerly mined area is developed. The RiverPark project team has worked hard to integrate a number of techniques into the design of the development and into the management plans that will direct and inform future uses of the site. Specifically, the Riparian Management Plan, Water Quality Control Plan, and PUD Guide reinforce respective aspects of this Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan to provide comprehensive protection of the natural habitats that abut the development area. The vision for Edwards RiverPark is a mixed-use neighborhood that intends to balance newly created community amenities with the preservation of the adjacent Eagle River wetlands and riparian habitat. As illustrated by the Conceptual Landscape Plan, the PUD integrates specific features to achieve this goal, including the interpretive boardwalk trail, overlooks at the plaza, recreation zones, a fenced dog park, and passive areas that work to control access and balance use of the preservation area. The Riparian Management Plan includes extensive information on managing the health of the Eagle River riparian corridor and provides detailed guidelines and best management practices. This Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan builds on the material by outlining the physical, regulatory, economic and educational measures to be employed for wetland protection at Edwards RiverPark, and provides documentation of the effectiveness and successful application of these techniques. The use and effectiveness of these measures are discussed according to research, practice, and policy documents on relevant subjects: minimizing conflict between recreation and conservation, visitor management and interpretation of sensitive areas, and wetlands best management practice techniques. A comprehensive list of references is included at the end of this document. This Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan summarizes the opportunities taken by Edwards RiverPark to direct, influence, and inform residents and visitors for the protection of the neighboring habitats. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION -x }Y Sr5 111 f _ a its. 1 k ill! t MI1111111 LU 0 a. 4:' ��6 ¢ o c� a 0 4:::k;.:;-;.t': ..; • '..," If /g I )1 )1) ! ! ;jr (/),.. ° v , 2.',:t!.--g*:;:- '': ,,. '„ '. ''..: h hi i I Iti lill ilipti 1 1 ni_ L j a V .Q 1 i -fv ,.� r,- ' 1 6 Y 'di..: '° `.'�'"yr - F 'isF LLJ ;rz„+'�"D -_ram ,paw - - ' \� '4+1,tt. t tf*Y d i / + ' s µ t w fir ., -,.*i : `, ,"-•A,.-*,,.2., , \1, 1 ,E, j j 7 ii tn 3 L _ frig 1 )rli 1 i ) -/P1 i .titer 4 s ,.. r : -,,-......,--,,,,`:*sr , 4---,:. i , ..: 44- ,'! ' -1 i 4 ''- q.iYa yr y a. t: 7�..� t i * ' " bt s 4 '_ ,E/' .r 1 i U N 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS Physical methods involve the spatial arrangement of features to steer human experiences and interactions with sensitive resources'.Spatial configurations should be accompanied by regulatory, economic, and educational components to increase their effectiveness and deliver a comprehensive solution12. 2.1 GRADE SEPARATION Grade separation is encouraged to protect especially vulnerable areas from the impact of visitor presence'. Constructed features and natural topography can function to establish vertical and horizontal distance and eliminate direct contact between visitors and a sensitive natural area. Designed features that serve this function include platforms and decks, boardwalks, and the ha-ha wall. Each of these features are discussed further in the following sections. PLATFORMS AND DECKS Platforms and decks create grade variation - and direct traffic to avoid ecologically g, sensitive areas. Located along the periphery, they protect adjacent wetlands by . preventingfuture destabilization, erosion ~ 1. rf r 1� " ° • and sedimentation" that would otherwise be caused by foot traffic3.These structures are often associated with viewing opportunities and create an appropriate zone for gathering and environmental education to take place. Example Qunli Stormwater Park is a protected regional wetland in Haerbin City, China. Located within an urban setting,the design approach demonstrates limiting access to the a;„ ,__- edge of the site through a network of platforms'. .. ;. " The elevated platforms allow visitors °'. r= . access to views across the wetland5. , Kuo,2002 2Cole, 1993 »fir'"" i 3Wetlands,2019 " ^Yu,Kongjian.Qunli Stormwater Park.ASLA 2012 Professional 4 Awards.https://www.asla.org/2012awards/026.html �' 1 5Turenscape.Qunli Stormwater Park.urbanNext.https:// urbannext.net/qunli-stormwater-park/ 3 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS 2.1 GRADE SEPARATION BOARDWALKS For sensitive sites that are expected to r :` receive an increase of visitors, planning formal, controlled access helps to prevent disturbances such as social trail formation'. Boardwalks are a common technique for creating "controlled access" within a .�- wetland. By lifting and separating people "- 00 ` from the terrain, boardwalks serve to shield s ,i vulnerable elements like wet soils and wetland vegetation from impact23;this i ', NAisilts414 minimizes disturbance while allowing people to experience the wetlands environment3. ,r When combined with interpretive information, this close contact helps build respect and appreciation and responsible use of the site'. -- - Examples Baker Wetlands is a 927-acre nature g. area in Lawrence, KS that is open to :, the public, allowing visitors access to -;M . 11 miles of trails with compliance to t wetland rules'. The Baker Wetlands boardwalk includes rest areas, docks with rails, �� and educational signage5. • Berkshire Boardwalk was part of a habitat enhancement project in Stockbridge, MA.The design is based on thorough site evaluation and responds to hydrologic and biotic characteristics. Low _ impact technologies were utilized during construction; the structure was assembled by hand, and "disturbance was limited to within feet or even inches of the walk". 'Kuo,2002 2Cole, 1993 'Wetlands,2019 4Baker Wetlands.Unmistakably Laurence.26 April 2018. https://unmistakablylawrence.com/family/baker-wetlands/ 5Stokes,Keith.Baker Wetlands Boardwalk.Baker Wetlands Discovery Center.2017.http://www.kansastravel.org/ lawrence/bakerwetlands.htm 6"Half-Mile,Hand-Built Line:Berkshire Boardwalk".2011 ASLA * " Professional Awards. https://www.asla.org/2011awards/351.html 4 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS 2.1 GRADE SEPARATION SITE APPLICATION: BOARDWALKS The creation of a boardwalk loop at Section 3. Regulatory Strategies. Edwards RiverPark will provide a unique amenity to the community, offering residents The determined height of the boardwalk and visitors a formal and low-impact way will serve to balance ecological quality to experience the wetland. The boardwalk with the safety of both humans and wildlife. will facilitate recreational and educational To comply with floodplain regulations, the opportunities for residents and visitors boardwalk must be at least 1' above 100- to observe the wildlife and functions of year flood elevation. As described in the their neighborhood wetland, offering the PUD Guide, the boardwalk height will vary potential to heighten appreciation and between the minimum elevation of 12" and responsible use of this natural resource a maximum height of 30" to accommodate The boardwalk loop will create two safe wildlife passage above the structure as designated entrance points at the wetland well as user safety. The design will be ADA boundary and will limit human impacts by compliant and will generally be without confining use to the length of the structure- handrails to accommodate safe wildlife approximately 2,400 feet in total. The vertical passage above the structure. The boardwalk lift of the boardwalk will further protect will include railings in certain locations, such the sensitive wetland flora, fauna, and soils as the end of the dock, to prevent unwanted beneath from the effects of foot traffic and access into the wetland area and integrate will not restrict the flow of surface water educational signage. across the floodplain. Please note: The construction and final The design, use, and management of the design of the boardwalk and dock are boardwalk have been coordinated with subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Parks and Wildlife. To enforce permitting and approval. Per the PUD Guide, seasonal closures and allow for wildlife use and construction of the boardwalk movement, the boardwalk will include and dock will be prohibited generally from modular drawbridges or removable November 15 to April 15 of each year to sections as points of disconnect from the reduce impacts to wetland soils and wildlife. development. Seasonal closures and use of the boardwalk are discussed further in BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 5 2.1 GRADE SEPARATION SITE APPLICATION: BOARDWALKS CLEAR CURB-TO-CURB.TYPICAL PERINP-CR GAB II/ COSTINJM5 Ss Oven SEE BOON MRB SMKSETS Iv SAPS POR"RAMOS MOO,DEGKIn6 -----_`_ N / I SS ,41 ..(,- 1,-- A l'' `-PRIMERS-'RCA"J' � O 1 o e AM gEYOAO 0 At tV 1 q £TAI,ESS ST... WtJ-BO_-g /..,,,..„.„....,____----T- 1 � 1> r I ESN�J.E AIS»M,ER UJ i PRESSJRC-'R£A'£JL N JOISTS PER STRJC,RA. �XxY--MATED BCni IZ^- :-i2_ �E-POPE GOFn£COR 2 Cx2g-IN6 SRAM♦N� y ISETV.JS o a n!..ICA.PX5R2 P£R 2-Ruc-JR?. —�1 NOTE SECTION MOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES.MEAL.DENO%SEEMTO AMES GEMEOMME.CONOPions, - sTROCTORALO s..ARO MKS FACTORS '''^-~'''a ma.P III q I . —___...___ .._. __________________�_____ __ CLEAR•TYPICAL REST AREA I i i 0 10 rih 0,,i,CX, 717.7-.\, ;1,1, ' 0 , 0 ...—V I li I \ ' / s ) ----H." \ i i I I b roue _ -� 1'-C' 111/�' _J n bF, r AMER V3.11.16.1011.41. ii— I I I esG Conceptual detail drawings of the boardwalk including a typical rest area,per the Edwards RiverPark Preliminary Plan Civil Sheet Set. 6 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS 2.1 GRADE SEPARATION HA-HA WALL A ha-ha is a recessed wall element that uses grade separation to create a boundary barrier,without interrupting views across the landscape. Ha-ha walls are applied to secure the perimeter of various settings, from governmental facilities to traditional pastoral -- -- ",° °�' garden designs. .,;� 6101 . _, * While not part of the Edwards RiverPark site f design, a ha-ha wall is an additional type of application for separating development and sensitive areas'. � �d t a ,v r c Example This view along a ha-hat shows how they function to create a subtle yet distinct topographical change that prevents access between two different land uses, such as formal areas and preserved landscapes. • Detail drawing for a ha-ha wall feature as part of the European Spallation Source conventional facility design being constructed near Lund, Sweden3. .gyp , 'Rumbarger,2003 2Murray,Dr.Richard."The ha-ha,Stowe".Geograph.https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_ha-ha,_Stowe_-_ geograph.org.uk_-_886732.jpg#mw-jump-to-license 3European Spallation Source."Perimeter Ha-ha Detail". Site&Conventional Facilities IKON 6 Magnus Eneroth Construction Manager Conventional Facilities.27 February 2014.https://slideplayer.com/slide/10395940/. BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 7 2.2 BARRIERS Barriers are strategically placed to define boundaries and discourage unauthorized use of adjacent areas that are sensitive to disturbance.They create important cues for users to distinguish between designated areas where traveling and gathering are permitted, versus zones that are off-limits for the protection and preservation of their ecological functions. Barrier structures are discussed in further detail in the sections below-from obtrusive objects to subtle forms that work with native materials and terrain. FENCES " M A fence is an obtrusive feature for preventing k k informal human access to sensitive areas'23. The height and structure can be such that it makes climbing over exceedingly difficult3. However, alternative barriers can be used to mark the boundary in a more aesthetic and integrated fashion, such as dense vegetatio large logs and rocks accompanied by interpretive signs2. Layering wildlife-friendly fencing with alternative barrier features increases thelikelihoodthat users will yield to . „� the boundary2. s �� I ,ram .. Wildlife passage is an important consideration 1 rwf� r in fencingdesign. Where fences are , � ' necessary, they can be designed to minimize Y't. the impact on wildlife by allowing safe passage to habitats and corridors.This is critical for fences in proximity to wetlands s' and riparian habitats,which are especially important for wildlife4. Colorado Parks and .« Wildlife's Fencing with Wildlife in Mind (2009) provides detailed recommendations for ." building fences that are highly visible to wildlife and allow for ease of jumping over 'l`e*A or sliding under smooth wires/rails. It includes ds alternatives that are suitable for public Ian - ��" ' t ' ,'. °� i and residential areas where people are present'. � Examples Fencing for Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve in Winchester, VA, a 60- 'Kuo,2002 acre area of marsh and swamps. 'Wetlands,2019 4Hanophy,2009 A rail fence is an example of a Sousquet,Dr.Woodward."Abrams Creek Wetland Preserve".Virginia Native Plant Society.https://vnps.org/ wildlife-friendly design that allows annual-meeting-2019-events/abrams-creed-wetland- wildlife passage over and under, preserve-photo-by-dr-woodward-bousquet/ °Hanophy,W.Fencing with Wildlife in Mind.Colorado that can be designed to fit the Parks and Wildlife,Denver,CO.2009,36 pp.https://cpw. project aesthetic6. state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/ FencingW ithW ildlifelnMind.pdf 8 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS SITE APPLICATION: FENCES Edwards RiverPark incorporates wildlife- the PUD Guide, wildlife-friendly fencing will friendly fencing at the perimeter of the be established along the entire common development along the wetlands buffer, in boundary with the Eagle River Preserve in combination with defining edge elements order to prevent human access, except in and appropriate signage. As described in locations designated by Eagle County. z > Q J z J UN WF Er, Z U W Q m¢ O Q¢8 JW N ' W,wo¢ - z>O ID Z O <WZU ▪ s-< << 1 0<0 Q> AI U W OO M Q -W i a Q N E Q 3 W Q a O W N W I W NWO_ 4LL> oiZN N> 1 .-N I I 11 I GO w i�ieiaf+► 1 0--• ,. 1 XISTIN6 1 FLOOD NNE RAPE LINE W ' ELEVATION 1 -—_ T_ ^!-� EL:VARIES I = ` Q Q \ WETLAEXISTINGNDS EL.7126,TVP. .. .`\ I VARIES SEE PLAN •. ' i GRADE LINE I EXISTING WETLAND Q SG 4-foot typical wildlife-friendly fencing will be placed along the development to prevent non-designated access into to the wetland.The fence will be combined with an edge-defining berm and signage to reinforce the off-limits zone. BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 9 2.2 BARRIERS EDGES IK-4! Clear demarcation and hardening of edges x 'w .11,1 ,. ,.,.x,„0..„,0:.ot A .#:,,,,p; ,,,,. h�si# ,, � along occupiable space creates a subtle and ` 3: ; x Vs ? r zFrTO e effective cue for visitors to stay in designated .' `• a 4=k t 1 r� {p z . areas'. Natural materials such as scree/ ::.' rocks and logs (including native materials � ' , "tp! ?' ' -. `� repurposed on-site), and dense vegetation AV d � .�� •. ' � `` can be used to create a defined edge with ' `� r���,, subtle grade variation'. Integrating these types of native materials brings spatial variety to the y� � "�'"� user experience and offers an alternative or ` 77 �.;� >. � 7.1.067:41 :„. - ,:t supportive measure to the more obtrusive signal of a fence'. Examples -• _1 4i_ 'Stone River' is a forest path in eastern New York state2.The stone material serves a similar function to scree walls used to prevent hikers from disturbing vegetation along � �h -_ mountain trails'. . Large log barriers accompanied :::' '''''', , 4; by signage have shown to be effective along the Gore Creek Trail in Vail, CO-west of Vail Valley Road providing access to Ford Park € Am hitheater and Betty Ford Alpine p Y p ' � Gardens. Photo courtesy of the Town ` ," 1 -.,. �% of Vail. y� ,, �'� `..�* SITE APPLICATION: EDGES Edwards RiverPark works to curb access subtle form of vertical separation, adding to the wetland by incorporating a clearly additional height to the 10' slope (on demarcated edge along occupiable average) that separates the building spaces adjacent to the wetland boundary. envelope and wetland boundary. See the At the Central Park, a 2' high berm is a Site Application: Fences graphic on page 11. 'Cole, 1993 2Dolan,John.Stone River.ASLA 201 1 Professional Awards. https://www.asla.org/201 1 awards/022.html 10 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS 2.2 BARRIERS LANDSCAPE BERMS # 4. Landscape berms can provide a number of important functions to protect wetland and wildlife habitats and buffer wildlife corridors from rdit development. Berms are strategically placed to • reduce potential conflicts in areas of differing land uses', by creating physical separation and a visual screen and noise barrier23. Berms can be designed to become an aesthetic amenity that supports multiple functions. �--- Examples Applying a native plant palette to a berm can have an appealing effect as a visual screen,while functioning • to separate land uses4. �5m A wildlife corridor is currently under construction to provide safe passage between two natural reserves though Orange County, California. The design incorporates vegetated berms to function as sound, noise, • and visual buffers from adjacent urban land uses'. bnx RR (ATM1SF R;W..aYt Aid6F Ri9WiY 8axan�Pbur AUL SITE APPLICATION: LANDSCAPE BERMS Per the PUD Guide, the design for Edwards and south along Lake Creek, to and from RiverPark employs a landscape berm/ the Eagle River corridor and open areas. visual screen at the western end of the This technique provides a multifunctional development (adjacent to PA-9) to allow for purpose of preventing human entrance into visual separation of residential development the protected wetland area, keeping wildlife to the areas to the west where elk, deer, within the migration corridor, and reducing and other wildlife are migrating north disturbances to this corridor. 'Strom et al.,2013 4Booher,Arron.Landscape berm.Brooklyn Botanic Garden 'Forman,2014 Visitor Center/Weiss/Manfredi.https://www.archdaily. 'The Audible,2017 com/445453/brooklyn-botanic-garden-visitor-center-weiss- manfredi 'Summary Report:Comprehensive Master Plan.The Orange County Great Park Corporation,The Great Park DESIGN STUDIO,2017 BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 11 2.3 VEGETATION SCREENS Plantings can provide a vegetative barrier, or RECOMMENDED PLANT SCHEDULE "living" fence, to control and direct access and can be used to mitigate vegetation SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME impacts created by social trail formation12. TREES The following recommendations for an Picea pungens Blue spruce effective vegetation screen are adapted Populus angustifofia Narrowleaf cottonwood from the Wetlands (2019) BMP manual prepared in part by the EPA. SHRUBS • The screen should create a transition Alnus incana Thinleaf alder zone between the wetland and ssp.tenuifolia developed areas. Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry • Use layered rows of shrubs and/or Betuta occidental's River birch trees and account for changes in the (B.fontinalis) soil moisturegradient farther from the C(C.stOmus lonif a Redosier dogwood (C.stofoniferaJ wetland. Crataegus erythropoda Hawthorn • Use densely planted native vegetation Distegia involucrata Bush honeysuckle along the developed edge-including Prunus virginiana thorny plants,to discourage entry to var.melanocarpa Chokecherry sensitive areas. Rhus trilobata Skunk brush • The planting scheme should be Ribes aureum Yellow currant aesthetic and attractive to wildlife, Ribes inerrne Whitestem gooseberry including blossom and berry-producing trees and shrubs to increase habitat Rosa woods'' Woods'rose value. Rubus ideaus Red raspberry ssp. Existing native vegetation should be ebb' sus • n Salix bbbiana Bebb willow preserved and enhanced. Salix exigua Sandbar willow Salix lasiandra Whiplash willow var.caudata Salix monticola Mountain willow Example A vegetation screen creates an interface separating the development from the wetland edge, helping to maintain ecosystem functions3. rdi1b high Water water 'Duerksen,et al. 1997 table 1:.i,4,- 'Wetlands,2019 3Central Coast Development Control Plan.Location Specific Development Controls.Chapter 5.46 Northern Wetlands Management.Central Coast Council.2018.https:// t Upland Wetland www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/27902/widgets/275931/ Scotland Increasing levels of inundation documents/94224.17 April 2020. ^Richards,F.D.Picea pungens 'The Blues'2015.9 May 2015.https://www.flickr.com/photos/50697352@N00/16846415334/in/ photolist-rG511 : -argooq-2f5GvfK-skcfgF-gcitKj-amZGRL-sk5IL7-6WKtMd- s 1 ya4E-sfQ9kA-6W Fu6K-skey3P-6 W FsGX-MBEgQD-sznw7w-sk7U R7-LbnnNj- 6 W KrLw-6W KrUQ-skeiGK-6 W FsX2-sBDPvk-sEt6e7-6W KsvS-s l xdrb-71 mtCX-GksmV m- 2f5Gv7t-6W KuRj-21 Zvge8-rEDsBj-LZbfra-amZJRC-s3MD50-amX2LR-sBuGH b- 9vgtl K-amZK4Y-amWUiF-9wJoRJ-FQcAKc-9x3dNV-6WKp4q-6WFgbH-9vQwQF- 6W FosD-9xhKXB-sl CgvE-9gKugr-6W KoLb 12 2.0 PHYSICAL METHODS SITE APPLICATION: VEGETATION SCREENS Vegetation screens will be employed native vegetation will be supplemented in multiple locations as an aesthetic with plantings to increase vegetation and effective way to control access to cover, habitat value, and ecological the wetlands. A Wetlands Buffer is to be functioning. The planting plan will reflect established along the entire development the recommendations of the Wetlands BMP edge. In addition to the water quality and manual and Riparian Management Plan, habitat functions provided by the buffer, it working with the advantageous qualities of will serve as a vegetative screen that will native vegetation for deterring passage into work in concert with other measures to limit the wetland, e.g. density, scrubbiness, etc. human access to the wetlands. In addition, Per the PUD Guide, significant screening vegetation screening will be an important and positive landscape benefits to the technique for controlling social trail Eagle River Preserve will be made through formation and unauthorized access from the landscape improvements and additional dock and/or boardwalk. reclamation activities within the Eagle River Preserve in accordance with the Proposed Within the wetlands buffer, the existing Offsite Landscape Improvement Plan. • • NEW TREES FOR SCREENING `z 23 SPRUCE,10-12'HIGH 12 PONDEROSA PINE,10-12'HIGH 22 COTTONWOOD,2.5°CALIPER INSTALL DEER PROTECTION FENCING fir I Snapshot of the Offsite Landscape Improvement Plan illustrating the proposed vegetation screen to be established between the development and the Eagle River Preserve.The plantings are design to mitigate effects xihoirk of the development and provide habitat enhancement. E t`. .' -. ij .4 (top to bottom) (top to bottom) Betula occidentalis Picea pungens4 Prunus virginiana Rhus trilobata Populus angustifolia Ribes aureum BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 13 3.0 REGULATORY STRATEGIES Regulatory measures are often employed to limit visitor-related disturbances to vegetation and wildlife.These can include limits on the time and season of usage, and the prohibition of specific activities'. Law enforcement increases the effectiveness of these regulations; however, communicating the purpose to visitors through interpretive signage and programs can also help to increase compliance and support for protection of the site, reducing the need for enforcement'. Combining physical construction methods and regulations is the most widespread approach to managing recreational use of sensitive areas and this combined approach has been shown to have the highest success rate'. SITE APPLICATION: REGULATIONS In tandem with physical methods, Edwards maintanence of the wetlands buffer and RiverPark has developed regulations for water quality include: resident and visitor activities as well as • Landscape with native vegetation and landscape establishment and maintenance promote native grass cover to filter throughout the development,wetlands runoff. buffer, and protected areas.The Riparian • Direct drainage to landscaped areas Management Plan and PUD Guide include and bioswales, not directly toward the regulatory BMPs aimed to limit disturbances river. and encourage sustainable land use • Nothing shall be poured down practices that will support hydrological and storm drains, including soapy water, ecological resilience of the area. In addition automobile oil, paint, household to BMPs, the Riparian Management Plan chemicals, and pesticides. establishes a monitoring program which will • Integrated weed management facilitate adaptive management. shall be the preferred method of weed control, using a multi-faceted Some of the key BMPs related to access approach that includes cultural, control include the following: mechanical, and chemical methods, as • Seasonal closure of the wetlands to described in Section 5.0 of the Riparian maximize the use of wetlands and Management Plan. riparian habitat by wintering wildlife • Pets, including domestic cats, shall and reduce the frequency of human always be on leash when outdoors on use on an overall annual basis.The the property and under direct owner construction of the boardwalk and supervision and control. dock system will be coordinated • Pet waste shall be removed by dog to include modular drawbridges or owners immediately and disposed removable sections to prevent entrance of in proper containers which are during the determined winter closure located throughout the property and period. boardwalk. • A designated fishing access trail for visitors to reach the Eagle River. Additional Best Management Practices and guidelines are contained in the Riparian Examples of BMPs for protection and Management Plan and PUD Guide. 'Kuo,2002 14 3.0 REGULATORY STRATEGIES 4.0 ECONOMIC STRATEGIES Economic strategies are another important tool for modifying visitor behavior and protecting ecologically sensitive areas. For example, fees can be used to generate income to fund the protection and maintenance of ecological resources'. Real estate transfer fees have been successfully implemented in Eagle County and neighboring mountain communities to facilitate this goal. Examples Since 1998,0.2%of thel%real estate transfer tax imposed by Eagle Ranch Metro District goes toward financing habitat enhancement projects that mitigate long-term impacts of the development as well as past agricultural land use2.The Town of Eagle has reached a similar agreement with the upcoming Haymeadow development3. A 1%real estate transfer tax has been in effect in the Town of Vail since 1976.The funds are allocated to "acquiring, maintaining and improving local property for parks, recreation, open space and for supporting sustainable environmental practices"4. SITE APPLICATION: REAL ESTATE TRANSFER Described by the PUD Guide, a Wildlife enhancements such as communication Enhancement Fund account will be and education efforts directed to residents established to collect a real estate transfer and visitors, water quality improvements, fee equal to 0.2%of the sales price of appropriate vegetation management in any residential dwelling unit within the open space and wetland areas, fisheries PUD Guide, whether deed-restricted for improvements, and stream enhancements workforce housing or not. This Fund will within the PUD. The allocation of funds for be administered by a Board established communication and education of residents by the District with members appointed and visitors will be included annually and by the applicant, Master Association, or should be considered a priority given the Metro Districts. Based on advice and impact that human behavior can have on input from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the wildlife. funds collected will finance wildlife habitat 'Kuo,2002 2Boyd,2007 3"Our",2019 ^Real 4.0 ECONOMIC STRATEGIES 15 5.0 EDUCATION & OUTREACH Lack of awareness is a root cause for visitors' undesirable behavior in sensitive natural areas'. Interpretive information is a preventative measure that increases visitors' knowledge and enriches their experience, underpinning the effectiveness of all other management strategies'. Interpretive information is the process of hosting visitors, helping them to properly navigate designed infrastructure and regulations, and to understand the site's unique ecological values. Integrating both educational and behavioral information at the entrance and throughout designated areas gives context that helps visitors make informed decisions regarding their behavior. Interpretive material with the most effective impact communicates the value of sensitive natural resources and draws a clear connection to the problems that certain types of behavior cause, as well as how visitors can behave to minimize their impact 12. Behavioral guidelines encourage visitors to engage in appropriate behavior that reduces their impact on the site's sensitive resources.The effectiveness of behavior guidelines is influenced by messaging. A research summary by Winter et al. (2001) provides some insight: studies across different locations in the U.S. have shown that negative descriptions are more effective; it is "better to tell people not to go off the trail" ... "than to say on it"3. Offering thoughtfully composed educational information about a site enables a fuller and more enjoyable experience for visitors, especially where access and behavior are limited in order to protect the site from degradation'.Storytelling around natural resources and cultural history through interpretive signs, artistic features, and activities helps to develop a greater impression than bare factual information14.This contextual information gives visitors the opportunity to build knowledge and respect toward the resources and behave accordingly.The potential effect of improving and reinforcing visitors' understanding and appreciation for a site is valuable, regardless of research into its influence on behavior'. Example Signage along Gore Creek in Vail, Colorado, demarks protected areas that are off-limits and reinforces the purpose of barriers.The signage was developed as part of the Town of Vail's Gore Creek Strategic Plan,to provide a strong, cohesive STREAMBANK messaging system throughout the Gore Creek watershed. Image RESTORATION courtesy of the Town of Vail. 16 5.0 EDUCATION&OUTREACH 5.0 EDUCATION & OUTREACH Examples Walking Mountains Science Center in Avon, CO features a wetland Wetlands she,w wit,tvtut.': boardwalk with educational signage ;. . y geared toward youth. Photo courtesy of Gary Brooks. , �,�n t�+r rot ,ti oKn,e r 1.,.. i is argomi`�an�«'Pt�1a t nm. Signage for Sycamore Creek Headwaters Restoration in Blue Ash, ewmea.,smvpt - �, Ohio illustrates processes happening ,.. throughout the watershed and the '"�iAJgR.WeeN{CeIMIiQiekYe• ,. , beneficial effects of riparian habitat on water quality5. Sycamore Creek Headwaters Stream Restoration At ono of Synemoro Creek itoederetore" ,_-_ �.Agun,...." �a we ;� mein tributaries,the development o/ _s I._. _ t....,,_...__. Summit Ptak ioffuoncea the natural reeourcua end ecology of the Sycamore � [ Crook Watershed nod the Miami Rivet t i 1 t nor ruler. BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 17 5.0 EDUCATION & OUTREACH Example ,.,, ".. t , Each spring,the nonprofit Monte .N � � *. ' Vista Crane Committee offers ` , t,'4 � guided tours of protected wetland - i-_ � 4 habitat in Monte Vista,San Luis , k ' z .�� 'lilt,' n , ' Valley, Colorado.The tours are �- ��� �"'�'� � �F� . Er part of the popular Annual Crane Festival, held to celebrate the return t.0 = ~� 4_ ,, of thousands of migratory sand hill cranes'. y' 0 4 SITE APPLICATION: EDUCATION & OUTREACH Interpretive information will be applied to wintering wildlife. convey and reinforce the aforementioned physical, regulatory, and economic As described by the PUD Guide, the measures throughout Edwards RiverPark. boardwalk will provide wetland access to Following the research-based nonprofit groups involved in environmental recommendations for effective education. Educational signage integrated communication, an interrelated set of with the boardwalk will enhance the signage will 1) illustrate the site's unique experience of these outreach efforts, natural resources 2) clearly connect the providing thoughtful, site-specific specific impacfs to the ecosystem caused information on ecological and cultural by improper use of the designed facilities, aspects of the site, such as the fen wetland, and 3) describe responsible/permissible use. the floodplains and riparian corridor of the Eagle River, the site's history as a gravel Behavioral/regulatory signage will be mine, etc. Per the PUD Guide, Colorado placed in conjunction with associated Parks and Wildlife will be consulted in physical features of the site, including the development of signage. Public alongside 'off-limits' barriers and at participation may be facilitated to offer disconnect points on the boardwalk to opportunities for connection and learning in explain the benefits of seasonal closure for the community. 'Kuo,2002 2Coie,1993 3Winter et al.2001 'Planning,2006 5MKSK Studios.Sycamore Creek Headwaters Restoration. Summit Park interpretive Signage.https://www.mkskstudios. com/projects/summit-park-interpretive-signage °Butcher,2008 18 5.0 EDUCATION&OUTREACH REFERENCES Boyd, Ram. "Eagle Ranch building a success".Summit Daily, 12 April 2007.https://www.summitdaily.com/news/ eagle-ranch-building-a-success/.Accessed 4 May 2020. Butcher, Russell D.America's National Wildlife Refuges:A Complete Guide.Second edition.Taylor Trade Publishing:Lanham,2008. Central Coast Development Control Plan. Location Specific Development Controls.Chapter 5.46 Northern Wetlands Management.Central Coast Council.2018.https://www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/27902/ widgets/275931/documents/94224.Accessed 17 April 2020. Cole, David N. 1993.Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation.In:Smith, D.S.; Hellmund, P.C.,eds. Ecology of greenways:design and function of linear conservation areas.Minneapolis,MN: Univ.of Minnesota Press: 105- 122. Duerksen, Christopher J.et al. Habitat Protection Planning:Where the Wild Things Are.American Planning Association.Chapter 2.A Practical Framework for Making Local Habitat Protection Decisions, 1997. Forman, Richard T.T. Urban Ecology:Science of Cities.Cambridge University Press: New York,2014. Hanophy, W.Fencing with Wildlife in Mind.Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver,CO.2009,36 pp.https://cpw. state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/FencingW ith W ildlifelnMind.pdf Kuo, I-Ling.2002.The Effectiveness of Environmental Interpretation at Resource-Sensitive Tourism Destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research,4.John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.87-101.DOI: 10.1002/jtr.362 "Our View:Trying on those home rule shoes, Eagle".Vail Daily.23 April 2019.https://www.vaildaily.com/news/our- view-try-on-those-home-rule-shoes-eagle/.Accessed 4 May 2020. Planning and Urban Design Standards. Part 2: Environmental Management,Water, River and Stream Restoration. American Planning Association.John Wiley&Sons: Hoboken,2006. Real Estate Transfer Tax(RETT).Town of Vail.https://www.vailgov.com/departments/finance/real-estate-transfer- tax-rett Accessed 4 May 2020. Rumbarger,Janet.Architectural Graphics for Residential Construction.The American Institute of Architects.John Wiley&Sons, Inc:Hoboken,2003. Strom,Steven, Kurt Nathan,and Jake Woland.Site Engineering for Landscape Architects.Sixth Edition.John Wiley &Sons, Hoboken.2013. The Audible Landscape:A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use. Physical Techniques to Reduce Noise Impacts.U.S. Department of Transportation.Federal Highway Administration.2017.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ ENVIRonment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/federal_approach/audible_landscape/a104.cfm.Accessed 17 April 2020. Wetlands Best Management Practice Techniques for Avoidance and Minimization. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.2019. https://neiwpcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Wetlands-BMP- Manual-2019.pdf. 13 April 2020. Winter, L. Patricia. Park signs and visitor behavior:A research summary.Science Notes.Park Science,25.2008,pp. 34-35. BIRCH ECOLOGY,LLC 19 • BIRCH ECOLOGY \-4" 4 rr NY'~ rM1 - p, < s { -i y y , i ,. - 'n., Y_ v IMMIUMMO 0Y MO, la MMk Ver.is t WI MOW SAKE INC. sty,.1..,e'.� Geotechnical Engineers&Construction Materials Consultants Originally issued February 22, 2019 Revised April 4, 2019 Mr. Don MacKenzie Sierra Trail Investments, LLC 4420 South Franklin Street Englewood, CO 80113 c/o Mr. Todd Goulding Goulding Development Advisors, LLC PO Box 2308 220 Gold Dust Drive Edwards, CO 81632 Subject: Geologic Hazards Assessment Edwards River Park 32476 Highway 6 Edwards, Colorado Project No. 19.5013.0 Dear Mr. MacKenzie: The objective of this letter is to characterize the potential geologic hazard conditions on and beneath the anticipated development site, and how collectively, Cesare, Inc. (Cesare) will identify, assist, and provide recommendations to mitigate the geologic hazards for the full buildout of the proposed development at Edwards River Park (ERP). The geologic hazards at the proposed site of ERP are not uncommon or unexpected within the Edwards, Colorado area, all can be mitigated, and the parcel can be developed. The letter summarizes previous reports and proposed sketch plans from March 2009 through January 2019 for the proposed development site at ERP. Please refer to the references for additional information not stated or attached in this letter. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ERP is proposed to be a mixed use of commercial, retail, and residential structures, comprised of condominium hotels, retail buildings, multi-family buildings, townhomes, duplexes, and single- family residences. The southern part of the project area is at the site of the inactive B&B Excavating gravel pit and the former site of the B&B ready mix concrete plant. The floor of the old gravel pit lies about 10 feet above the Eagle River valley floor and was excavated about 50 plus/minus feet below the adjacent Highway 6. SCOPE/PURPOSE This letter characterizes the potential geologic hazard conditions and the potential impact these conditions may have on the anticipated development of the site. The assessment is based from Corporate Office: 7108 South Alton Way,Building B a Centennial,CO 80112 Locations:Centennial a Frederick •Silverthorne o Salida/Crested Butte Phone 303-220-0300 s www.cesareinc.com CESARE,INC. experience in the area and the references provided to us. The geologic hazards listed below will be mitigated prior to building permits and are not required as a part of the plan unit development (PUD) preliminary plan approval. The geologic hazards addressed in this letter include: 1. Site Geology 1.1 Eagle Valley Formation 1.2 Eagle Valley Evaporite 2. Sinkhole Potential 3. Subsidence (Rim Subsidence) 4. Hydrology 5. Surficial Soils and Landforms 5.1 Human disturbed ground and human placed fill 5.2 Subsidence deposits 5.3 Alluvial fans and alluvial fan flooding 5.4 Colluvium 6. Eagle River and Lake Creek Flooding 7. Construction Related Slope Instability 8. Earthquakes 9. Wastes: Impacted Soil and Groundwater FORMAT OF THIS LETTER Cesare will describe the geologic hazard listed above, followed by an "italicized response"to the numbered hazard, and how collectively, Cesare will identify and/or assist and provide recommendations to mitigate the geologic hazards for the full buildout of the proposed development at ERP. References used throughout this letter are attached: • Geological map (Figure 3 provided by Western Ecological Resource (WER)) • Proposed Site Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan for ERP 1. Site Geology HP-Geotech (HP) created reports and Western Ecological Resource completed a geologic site assessment in 2009 and 2017 for the ERP and evaluated the geology to determine if there were any geologic conditions that could potentially be hazardous or could present major constraints to the proposed development. The information presented below summarizes these referenced reports. The Eagle Valley Formation (Qc/Pe) and Eagle Valley Evaporite (Qc/Pee) are present around the rim of the 420 acre subsidence feature at the project site and contact between these two formations is present below the surficial soil deposits at the project site. The formation has translational faces between the Evaporite rocks in the Eagle Valley Evaporite and clastic rocks in the Maroon Formation. The Evaporite is relatively soluble in circulating groundwater and solution of the Evaporite has resulted in subsidence features, sinkholes, and cavities. 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 2 CESARE,INC. 1.1 Eagle Valley Formation (Pe) The Eagle Valley Formation is exposed locally in the railroad cuts on the north side of the project site. The bedding strikes to the northeast and northwest dip between 11 and 28 degrees to the northwest and southeast. The Eagle Valley Formation is described as gray, reddish gray, light green, and tan shale, siltstone, fine grained sandstone, carbonate rocks, and local lenses of gypsum. With common distinctive dark to light gray, finely crystalline limestone beds. Units are transitional between the Minturn and Maroon Formations and purely evaporitic rocks. Thickness varies, depending on intertonguing relations. Evaporite beds are locally present in the Eagle Valley Formation. 1.2 Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pee) The Eagle Valley Evaporite is present on the valley side to the southwest of the south development area (south of the Eagle River), but does not crop out at the project site. It was encountered in five of the HP borings at a depth of 2 to 92 feet below grade. The large drop in depth between the borings is the belief that the borings were on the high and low sides of the rim subsidence bedrock feature. (See Sections 3. Subsidence (Rim Subsidence) and 5.2. Subsidence Deposits for additional information). The Eagle Valley Evaporative is described as a light to dark gray, tan, white, evaporite sequence consisting mostly of gypsum, anhydrite, and interbeded siltstone, with interbeds of tan weathering light to dark gray shale and clayey limestone, tan, very fine grained sandstone, and red silty sandstone and minor dolomite containing thick salt layers in some places. Intertongues occur with the Minturn and Maroon Formations which grade into fine grained clastic rocks from the Eagle Valley Formation. The bedrock is diapiric in structural configuration in many places on the western part of Colorado. Thicknesses are indeterminate. 1. Cesare's Response to Site Geology After PUD preliminary plan approval and prior to any building permits, Cesare will help determine the geologic formations of the ERP site and will provide a combination of a geophysical study, senior geological consultant review, and additional geotechnical study. The geophysical study will be done using several seismic lines totaling about 6,000 liner feet. The seismic survey will use a combination of shear-wave seismic refraction tomography (S-SRT) and multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW). The geophysical surveys are proposed to provide 2D shear wave velocity profiles to determine soil and bedrock characteristics, bedrock depth, and to evaluate presence and/or extent of collapsible soil in the subsurface. Cesare will provide verification borings prior to the geophysical study in lieu of additional geotechnical studies of the site. By providing additional borings, Cesare can compare subsurface conditions encountered in Cesare borings with HP and Terracon's previous borings and provide additional data for the geophysical study. Our data will be reviewed by a geological consultant. Cesare will provide detailed and/or updated geological figures and bedrock surface maps during our 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 3 CESARE,INC. geotechnical studies and performances for the different phases throughout the buildout of ERP. 2. Sinkhole Potential Geologically young sinkholes are locally present in the Edwards area as shown in the referenced reports. The closest documented sinkhole is about 170 feet south of the proposed MF#2 building, near the old schoolhouse. Others have been found north of Cordillera Valley Club area and in Beaver Creek Village. This indicates that infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the region of Edwards. 2, Cesare's Response to Sinkhole Potential After PUD preliminary plan approval and prior to any building permits, Cesare will help identify sinkholes, potential sinkholes, cavities, and/or low density soil locations, as stated in Section 1, Cesare's Response to Site Geology, Cesare will provide the same combination of a geophysical study, senior geological consultant review, and additional geotechnica/ study. Using S-SRT and MAW seismic technology, this can provide additional information on where potential hazards could exist. Cesare will provide additional informational borings at these locations, provide samples with factual data, updated geophysical data, and geological figures, bedrock, and sinkhole maps. Due to the complex nature of some sinkholes or low density soil locations, Cesare will map, to the best of our ability, the locations of sinkholes and low density soil. However, it might not be possible to avoid all sinkhole risk to the proposed development. The risk will be reduced with more geophysical studies, verification borings, and geotechnical studies,per location of structures. Mitigation measures for sinkholes could include the following: a) deep foundations(i.e., drilled piers, micropiles, or helical piers), b) surcharge loading, c) structural bridging, d) mat/raft foundations, e) stabilization by reexcavation and structural backfilling, 0 stabilization by injection grouting, g) stabilization by dynamic compaction, h) or a possible combination of the above, depending on the situation. Mitigation conclusion: Even with complex geology beneath the site, construction of buildings and roads are possible. Communication with the developer, design team, and stakeholders are very important so that everyone can understand the risks associated with the possible geologic hazards. The result is the willingness to perform a more detailed subsurface exploration. With more subsurface information from additional exploration the appropriate mitigation measures can be selected. The cost and schedule estimations will be better defined and thus provide fewer contingencies. 3. Subsidence (Rim Subsidence) The ERP site is nearly level with the Eagle River Valley cutting through it. The site is underlain by subsidence deposits (Qs). These deposits are poorly drained and typically have water within a few 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 4 CESARE,INC. feet of the ground surface. Most of ERP is located at the far east side of the subsidence feature (rim subsidence area). This subsidence is related to the solution of evaporite along the Eagle River. Additional subsidence descriptions are discussed in Section 5.2. Subsidence Deposits. The 2009 HP report mentions that HP was not aware of subsidence related problems to the existing facilities located in the ERP subsidence area, and it is uncertain if subsidence is still occurring at the project site or if subsidence has stopped. 3. Cesare's Response to Subsidence After PUD preliminary plan approval and prior to any building permits, Cesare will help identify subsidence as stated in Sections 1. Cesare's Response to Site Geology and 2. Cesare's Response to Sinkhole Potential and will provide the same combination of a geophysical study, senior geological consultant review, and additional geotechnical study. Using S-SRT and MASW seismic technology, there will be several seismic lines laid across this subsidence area that will help indicate where the rim subsidence could be based on the geology map provided by HP and WER. Identifying the area of rim subsidence will help the design team evaluate foundation design and potential settlement differences. This evaluation will help provide the stakeholders with potential impact to cost estimates per building site locations. Per the geology map and boring configurations from the HP report, the edge of the estimated rim subsidence is in the middle of the main condominium Building #1 and at the toe of the massive structural fill for the main road. This could cause a difference in depth for deep foundations to mitigate settlement due to depth differences in rim subsidence. There could also be a risk in potential differential settlement for the massive structural fill for the proposed main road. Consequently, identifying the rim subsidence is vital information for both design and cost estimations. Mitigation measures and conclusions are described in Section 2. Cesare's Response to Sinkhole Potential. 4. Hydrology Environment The ERP site is traversed by about 3,200 linear feet of the Eagle River. The Eagle River drainage basin upstream of the project site covers about 2,900 square miles with the head water at an elevation of about 13,500 feet. Two intermittent drainages north of the site that flow south into the project are called Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch. Lake Creek flows north to join the Eagle River just west of the west property line. The Eagle River valley floor is nearly level, ranging in elevation from 7,132 feet on the east side to an elevation of 7,126 feet on the west end. The valley floor is about 4 feet above the river and could be subject to flooding. The 100 year floodplain and the floodway boundary of the Eagle River was mapped by FEMA. In the 2009 HP report, measured groundwater was observed at 11 to 26 feet below existing grade at an elevation of 7,124 and 7,120 feet, however, the 2011 Terracon report reported groundwater 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 5 CESARE,INC. at about 6 to 14 feet below existing grade. 4. Cesare's Response to Hydrology Environment After PUD preliminary plan approval and prior to any building permits, Cesare will help identify groundwater levels and elevations. Cesare recommends installing several constant water level recorders in piezometers, which will be installed during our geotechnical studies for the buildout of the ERP. This information will be shared with the design team and stakeholders of the project. Per the HP and Terracon reports, high groundwater was observed in the areas of the proposed single-family homes, retail, barn, and amphitheater locations of the project. Cesare will provide constant water level recorders at these locations. Mitigation of groundwater elevations will consist of subsurface drainage, design below grade portions of structures for groundwater, and/or setting elevations of structures above the groundwater. 5. Surficial Soil and Landforms 5.1 Human disturbed ground and human placed fill 5.2 Subsidence deposits 5.3 Alluvial fans and alluvial fan flooding 5.4 Colluvium 5.1 Human Disturbed Ground and Human Placed Fill This area is predominantly under the proposed single-family residences and is labeled SF #1, SF#2, retail section, and barn. The southern part of the ERP project area is at the former site of the B&B Excavating gravel pit. Open pit mining of Qt4 and Qt5 terrace alluvium in the B&B pit was altered during mining process and is labeled as (af). The terrace alluvium is on the north side of Highway 6 and south of the Eagle River. The alteration from mining of the gravel has substantially modified the natural geomorphic feature in the south portion of the development area. Organic layers and the Lake Creek alluvial fan were covered during layout for the B&B operations. Per the HP report, human placed fill was observed in four of the five borings at a depth of 5 to 16 feet. The report also stated that in some areas topsoil is mixed within the fill. Potential risks from human placed fill consist of undocumented fill process not being properly cleared and grubbed during fill placement. 51 Cesare's Response to Human Disturbed Ground and Human Placed Fill Identifying human disturbed ground and placed fill will be done during our geotechnical study by providing borings and exploratory pits at the proposed building sites and proposed building locations. From previous studies, it has been determined that human placed fill was pushed and graded over native soil and/or organics to provide a relative level surface for B&B's operations. During Cesare's geophysical study, we might be able to identify additional human placed fill information with sampling from the boring logs and/or exploratory pits. 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 6 CESARE,INC. Cesare will provide boring and exploratory pit logs and identify any human p/aced fill and provide a map of the extent, elevations and/or thicknesses of the human p/aced fill. Due to the human p/aced fill p/aced over organics, mitigation measures and conclusions listed in Section 2, Cesare's Response to Sinkhole Potential should be evaluated prior to construction due to potential settlement from the organics and potential settlement and secondary settlement from the undocumented human p/aced fill. 5.2 Subsidence Deposits Referencing HP reports and WER report, the Eagle River Valley floor is underlain by subsidence deposits (Qs). The subsidence is poorly drained and typically has groundwater within a few feet of ground surface. In the HP borings, estimated subsidence deposits are between 35 and 85 feet thick and overlie the Eagle River Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite. The deposits have a two tier stratigraphic formation. The upper stratigraphic formation observed in HP borings was from 32 to 57 feet thick. The layer consists of low energy, overbank river sediments that were deposited onto the Eagle River Valley floor of the 420 acre subsidence area as the river slowly subsided. The low energy deposits are made up of the interstratified silt, clay, sand with many highly organic layers and gravelly, cobble, and boulder layers. The lower stratigraphic formation observed in HP borings was from 20 to 28 feet thick. The layer consists of high energy, river alluvium and represents the initial phase of subsidence of the Qt4 and Qt5 Terrance deposits. The lower layer is made up of gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a mixed sand and silt matrix. 5.3 Alluvial Fans (Qal and Qf) Referencing the HP reports and WER report, there are relatively large alluvial fans (Qal) at the mouths of the Lake Creek, Beard Creek, and Deadhorse Gulch. The alluvial fans enter the Eagle River Valley floor and underline part of the north and south side of the proposed development site. Small alluvial fans (Qf) are present and adjacent to the mouths of the alluvial fans (refer to attached geological map). Per HP borings, Boring 1 located near the Lake Creek alluvial fan indicates the fan deposit is about 21 feet thick and is overlain by 16 feet of human placed fill. The fan deposit in the boring is underlain by high energy alluvium. 5.4 Colluvium (Qc) Colluvium is probably less than 20 feet thick in most areas, usually covering the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite in the north development area. The colluvium consists of angular to rounded rock from gravel to boulder size that are supported in a matrix of sand, silt, and clay. The colluvium was formed during post glacial times, about 15-thousand years ago. 5,2 through 5,4 Cesare's Response to Subsurface Deposits,Alluvial Fans, and Colluvium After PUD preliminary p/an approval and prior to any building permits, Cesare will help identify 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 7 CESARE,INC. subsidence, alluvial fans, and colluvium, as stated previously in Sections 1, Cesare's Response to Site Geology and 2. Cesare's Response to Sinkhole Potential. Cesare will provide the same combination of a geophysical study, senior geological consultant review, and additional geotechnical study. Using S-SRT and MASW seismic technology, there will be several seismic lines laid across this subsidence area that will help indicate where the subsidence could be. Cesare will provide verification borings prior to the geophysical study in lieu of additional geotechnical studies of the site. By providing additional borings, Cesare can compare Cesare borings to HP and Terracon's previous borings and provide additional data for the geophysical study. Our data will be reviewed by a geological consultant. Reference Section 3, Cesare's Response to Subsidence for mitigation measures and conclusions depending on building layout and location. 6. Eagle River and Lake Creek Flooding As stated in WER for the proposed layout; single-family residence, retail section, barn, and amphitheater are located adjacent to the 100 year floodplain of the Eagle River. Alluvial fan flooding could be present. The project drainage and storm water management plan should evaluate flash flooding and associated high sediment concentration flows on the Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch alluvial fans (Qa1) and smaller alluvial fans (Qf). Potentially, low to nil flash floods could occur on these alluvial fans. 6. Cesare's Response to Eagle River and Lake Creek Flooding Cesare understands that Alpine Engineering Inc. (AEI), FEMA, and survey topographical data will be generated and provide the 100 year floodplain elevations for this site. Cesare agrees that structural fill material could be used to elevate the structures above the 100 year floodplain. Cesare understands AEI will be providing the project drainage and stormwater management plan for flooding situations. 7. Construction Related Slope Instability Per site visits, HP's report, and WER's report, considerable grading will be needed for the development. The site grading will result in cut slopes and fill slopes that will need to be analyzed for potential slope instability. In addition, some excavating in slopes may occur for the geophysical study and geotechnical exploration. 7. Cesare's Response to Construction Related Slope Instability Cesare understands slope instability could occur and will need to be studied prior to our geophysical and geotechnical study. Cesare will evaluate potential impacts of development on slopes greater than 30% within the proposed development, as well as, potential impacts on adjacent surrounding properties Temporary benches may need to be cut into the hillside to gain access for the geophysical study and geotechnical exploration. The temporary grading might need to be excavated to provide safe access. Cesare will evaluate the stability of the slope prior to grading of the slope. 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 8 CESARE,INC. During our studies, Cesare will provide a combination of a geophysical study and additional geotechnical studies, per phases of the project, and will provide slope stability analysis for each structure and/or road for the project site. 8. Earthquakes Per HP report and WER report, historic earthquakes within the 150 miles of the project site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes of 5.5 and/or less. At this time, the soil profiles at the project site should be considered a Class D. 8. Cesare's Response to Earthquakes To help solidify the seismic site classes for each structure proposed at the development of ERP and in lieu of our geophysical studies, the geophysical study will provide calculated VS100 or depth weighted average shear wave velocity for determination of IBC seismic site classifications for each proposed structure. 9.Wastes: Impacted Soil and Groundwater The WER report, Terracon reports, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) report discuss that the former B&B Excavating site had an asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, and performed open pit mining, and the soil onsite had petroleum based contaminants. Terracon and CDPHE provided a corrective action plan (CAP) in May 2009 and a second CAP dated August 2009 to address remediation of petroleum impacted soil and groundwater associated with former asphalt batch plant operations, per the requirements of the Colorado Hazardous Waste Commission Regulations. The site contamination is believed to have occurred due to historic mining and equipment maintenance practices and improper disposal of petroleum based contaminants in the soil that took place at the site during operations. CDPHE issued a "No-Further Action Determination" letter in 2011 which reviewed the soil and groundwater monitoring reports for the first quarter of 2010 and second quarter of 2011 for the former B&B Excavating property, and the department made a "No Further Action Determination" due to the monitoring reviewed. 9. Cesare's Response to Wastes:Impacted Soil and Groundwater Per the CDPHE report and the WER report, the department approved the reports as submitted and plans to take no further actions regarding remediation requirements, as defined in the aforementioned CAP (as amended) for the site, The department made a "No Further Action Determination': 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 9 CESARE,INC. Although there are several geologic hazards on this proposed site, the hazards are not uncommon or unexpected within the Edwards, Colorado area and it is our opinion that the parcel is developable for the proposed master plan layout of the Edwards River Park Project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please contact our office. Sincerely, CESARE, INC. • 4 P .P� cA• KO?%. • Id• u 1 . 71.0 e,c1;10:' 15967 4/2/2019 o Ian Cesare William H. Koechlein, P.E. Manager-Silverthorne Senior Consultant IMC/ksm Attachments 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 10 CESARE,INC. REFERENCES UTILIZED 1. HP-Geotech, Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Study for Eagle River Meadows for Atira Group, Project No.: 109 028A, dated March 31, 2009. 2. HP-Geotech, Draft Geologic Site Assessment for Proposed Eagle River Meadows for Atira Group, Project No.: 109 028A, dated March 31, 2009. 3. HP-Geotech, Supplemental Subsurface Study, North Side Area, Proposed Eagle River Meadows for Atira Group, Project No.: 109 028A, dated April 30, 2009. 4. Terracon, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Site Investigation Report and Proposed Closure Summary for B&B Excavation Property, dated April 8, 2009. 5. Terracon, Draft Corrective Action Plan Modification for BWAB Reef Gravel Pit prepared for Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management (CDPHE), Project No.: 25097019, dated May 2009. 6. CDPHE, Review of Groundwater Monitoring Reports, First Quarter 2010 and Second Quarter 2011 of the Final Agency Action — No Further Action Determination letter, dated October 28, 2011. 7. Western Ecological Resource, Inc., Environmental Impact Report for River Park, dated February 2017. 8. Board of County Commissioners County of Eagle County, State of Colorado, Resolution Approving the Edwards River Park Sketch Planned Unit Development, File PDS-6738, dated March 17, 2017. 9. Upstream Development, Proposed Site Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan, dated April 2, 2019. 19.5013.0 Edwards River Park Geologic Hazards Assessment Letter 04.04.19 11 - - ,.§ ..1 I -1..,-4•,,, 7r*,,,,,.....',. /,,„*.-- / it Z - 411 f',. Ki..4.6.4,,,4:t:34,,N.,‘-•i 5•,,•:.-;:,„;7,4,.,,,,Iii . / ,„„,A\.,-,-,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t, ,,,:„,•,-.,' A,,,,,,,,...._ II ', -;,..., _ .— t .. ,e`4 1,-,44:4, ',",..)::..;:24.1;lif , ,,-,..• :.*\ ,. to 416,,, 11 ''------ sp, .• ,Il ..,. .. ,, _,,,.., 4,,.....,---, ce + k 4 4 I E ,t, IS tri k ...... co , , „, . „ el, 1410P 8 .., 11, „fi,_. at „ik fiti a • 1 . i.; ',' •it, , ::,11, 1 1 , •4.. i . 0 ta........,4> _. ,........17 . d 1 . 111 • „ .. .,.. tit 't ... C4 ... .„....4 .A , .., ,,.. ,1 .... ,, . I ,: i 1 1 , I< cl :: I r'''' _ I 1 i; . (II 8 ill)• „„....• . ' It.' 1 .,.• 11 -:1 '1 0 4 - ,',,,44• .: 10A i 3 4, ,...... 4 Nilw , ........- 1 1 1 1 1 I tl . • . . i.. ill 1 . : ovo E Ei Li. 8 4, *a , ) ,,,„ ........., •-• , - Figure 3. • t i'41/4V.r. [ ' ' 25 i ogritech 1 A/t° RG ievoeiroPgayr Mapk ______-----------"----" il'ilt ct .t 11 1 1 1111111111111 ai_ ..Q, fit kg,. Lu Tip 4 1 '''.11-- .4' i'....«,..st,;„1 ••, ',... < 0 C%uetV,YRIgliCliz: 3 13 o LU < It 't" • -o,"....7..,:, 111111 I IIIIily 1111 All a a ct c)) +.1 1:111i1 Ifsili;i1 LI I fJ - ..J < <% , I _J (f) ") 0 - S a a - • 'iV":',:i.',----1 /1' k'''' , )1 t ' C:1 < -7-c.,•,')•••,-..4, ) ,-, a_ CK in -,..,,..:!,*,..•,t," s .L 2 ,,,,,,, fl.1 LU , . 0 <..„.. LU Z 0 17:71 I: ui .....,,....._ ,.. „...,...„...7,„ .....;,....., - , ,,......,,,-..„.P , V,,,,..t.,,..• '''' V ;:f p.,1, 1 '",,Si. - ;\.. • ' ,I, ' ' '''„4 4,-,,.•-,-, ."7 ,,,,1..0 4-•tt; , 44.1..ag.,.•tu# . ..•—, .. t d,. ,,4„I ' % ,0,,4 ,i,./ , 44, 7, .4 4 , -:;%-- -nly. --- , \,. i . i,,, . b „,...._,:.,.. .. ,1 ,.........„..„.„. . , , D,,ii (..-.4 i vs,„Vry-,4 ,..14Fai% I . „ ''C \I .1 )4('.' 0 1 * .' Vt*.9." 4 t 'N' . 1 k ,;`,4. , .°4 i 4i •, `:-‘,0,',;`."•*-- ;-",,!..",- w.' I • j' I IA ‘, ,.• . t 3 i V" -• "11,' . ' i;',, .frdilial '-'4 ill'''f vt 1 ' ,•\` i' 1 .,.,.,*,,,,I, 11;1 I* ,.,1,,\•‘,,,-,,,,,.,,, - , I 0 * 'I " . Ak . 1 1 i 4,t. itig. 4t ' ,,i ", L ‘1'.. ,if i it '4 *.` 4 4.,•'• 4.. if It ,,.. = t I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIII #1 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STt1DY PROPOSED EAGLE RIVER MEADOWS HIGHWAY 6 AND LAKE CREEK ROAD NEAR EDWARDS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 109 028A MARCH 31,2009 PREPARED FOR: THE ATIRA GROUP ATTN: LANCE BADGER 56 EDWARDS VILLAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 225 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS -2 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 - GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - 5 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS r - 5 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS -5 - FOUNDATIONS - 6- FLOOR SLABS - 7- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 7 - SITE GRADING - 8 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 9- LIMITATIONS - 9 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 4-NOTES OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURES 5 -8 -SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 9 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Eagle River Meadows development, Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road, near Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The study was limited to the area south of the Eagle River(south side area) at this time due to access limitations to the north portion(north side area). The purpose of the study was to_evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide preliminary foundation and site grading recommendations for the proposed development. The study was conducted as part of our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to The Atira Group, dated February 4, 2009. Our assessment of the geologic conditions and potential geologic hazard impacts on the entire development area is being submitted in a separate report dated March 31, 2009, Job No. 109 028A. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and othet engineering characteristics. The results of the field c*plairation and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning arid preliminary and site grading foundation designs. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions and preliminary recommendations based on the proposed development and subsurface conditions encountered. Qtir preliminary subsurface study of the northern area of the site will be submitted at a later date after those exploratory borings have been drilled. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development is planned to consist of mixed use residential and commercial located in the southern and northern areas of the site on either side of the Eagle River, see Figure 1. The residential developments are shown on the illustrative development plan to be located in the northern portion of the south area and the north area of the site. The residential Job No. 109 028A Ge tech - 2 - structures are expected to be 2 to 3 story multi-unit structures and have relatively light foundation loadings. The commercial buildings are shown to be located in the north- central and south/southwest portions of the south area. The commercial buildings will include retail, medical and office buildings and probably be 2 to 3 stories in height with moderate to moderately heavy foundation loadings. The site will be accessed from Highway 6 along the south side of the site and there will be internal roads and parking areas within the development. A bridge across the Eagle River located in the east-central part of the site will connect the south and north areas. We expect relatively heavy foundation loadings for the bridge. Once development plans have been better determined, we should review the plan and perform additional analyses as needed. SITE CONDITIONS In general, the site consists of valley bottom meadows on either side of the Eagle River transitioning up to moderately steep hillside terrain along the north side and up to a relatively flat river terrace deposit on the south side along Highway 6. The terrace gravel deposit on the south side of the river has been mined as a gravel pit with considerable grading including steeply graded cuts up to about 40 to 50 feet high below Highway 6 and fills up to about 10 to 15 feet deep across the pit area. There are areas of mapped wetlands in the natural low-lying terrain area between the gravel pit and the Eagle River. The moderately steep hillside terrain on the north side of the site, north of the river, extends up to above the railroad tracks and Interstate Highway 70. At the bridge crossing site,the terrain appears mostly natural and the slopes are steep on the south side and moderately steep on the north side of the Eagle River. Elevation of the site ranges from about 7200 feet on the south side near Highway 6 down to about 7125 feet along the Eagle River and up to about 7150 feet along the north side below the railroad right-of-way. Vegetation consists of grasses in the lowlands and sage and other brush on the adjacent higher terrain with areas of deciduous and evergreen Job No. 109 028A Geclitech - 3 - trees. There are scattered cobbles and boulders on the ground surface in areas of the site. A 24 inch diameter sewer line crosses the south area extending from the northeast to the southwest. The sewerline has apparently been operating for about 30 years. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 11, 12 and 19, 2009. Five exploratory borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the general subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,Inc. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock were taken with 1%inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils and bedrock at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relativedensity or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the bedrock. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock were also taken by disturbed sampling methods from the auger cuttings.-_Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. Slotted PVC pipe was placed in Borings 2, 4 and 5 to allow monitoring of the groundwater levels. Depths that the PVC pipe was placed are shown on the boring logs. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils were variable with respect to type, depth and engineering characteristics, and in general, below nil to about 16 feet of man-placed fill, consisted of typically shallow Job No. 109 028A Gg5tech -4- depths of topsoil, sandy silt and clay or silty sandy gravel with cobbles overlying silty to very silty sand containing peat zones or layers and included primarily peat soils in Boring 2 from 11 to 32 feet depth. At Boring 1,the silty sand extended to a depth of 37 feet underlain by silty sandy gravel and cobbles to 44 feet depth where siltstone/claystone was encountered to the drilled depth of 45 feet. At Borings 2 and 4,the silty sand with peat soils extended down to depths of 65 and 40 feet underlain by intermixed sand and silt with siltstone/claystone encountered at depths of 92 and 60 feet. At Boring 5, the fill and coarse granular soils were underlain at a depth of 10Y2 feet by the silty sand with probable peat soils and siltstone/claystone at 40 feet depth. At Boring 3, siltstone/claystone was encountered near the surface below a shallow depth of coarse granular soils. The fill was silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles to occasionally sandy silty clay with scattered gravel and cobbles and ranged from loose to dense. The silty sandy gravel and cobble soils contained boulders that were rounded to sub-rounded and could be up to several feet in diameter, and was medium dense to dense. The sandy clay and silt soils were generally stiff. The peat soils appeared highly organic and were generally medium stiff The silty sand with peat soil layers or zones contained scattered gravel and cobbles and was loose to medium dense. The siltstone/claystone is the Eagle Valley Evaporite, was possibly gypsiferous in areas and medium hard to very hard. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples are presented on Figures 5 through 8. The swell-consolidation testing indicates the clay and silt soils to be slightly to moderately compressible and the silty sand and peat soils to be generally highly compressible under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on a small diameter drive sample(minus 1 4 inch fraction)of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Figure 9. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. Job No. 109 028A c. ©tech -5 - Free water was encountered in Borings 1, 2, 4 and 5 at the time of drilling and when checked 7 or more days following drilling at depths from about 7 to 18 feet. No free water was encountered in Boring 3. The subsoils were generally moist to very moist becoming wet near and below the free water level. The siltstone/claystone was generally moist but may be wet in the deeper borings. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The surficial geologic conditions at the site are shown with the exploratory boring locations on Figure 1. The geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards are addressed in detail in our separate report dated March 31, 2009. Also shown on Figure 1 is the extent of a potential subsidence feature that covers all but the southern part of the subject site. The subsidence feature extends down valley and appear similar to other nearby subsidence features that have already been developed. Our geology report should be referenced for further discussion of the site and regional geologic conditions. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Most of the site is underlain by the subsidence feature that includes compressible soils. Additionally,there has been considerable fill placement and grading in the south development area. The geologic conditions, existing fill and subsurface conditions will impact the proposed development and should be considered in the planning process. The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and our experience in the area. The recommendations are considered suitable for planning and preliminary design but site specific studies should be conducted for individual buildings and other structures. Additional borings are also recommended to better evaluate the compressible soils and fill extent as part of the planning process. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Job No. 109 028A GeZtech - 6- Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the buildings or other structures on the site. Near Highway 6, in the southern part of the site, coarse granular soils and siltstone/claystone(Evaporite) are near the existing ground surface and these materials should possess moderate to moderately high bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential. Within the subsidence area, where highly compressible soils exist to depths up to about 92 feet, surcharge loading has been successfully used on nearby developments to consolidate the upper soils to allow for construction of lightly loaded residential structures. Surcharge loading consists of placing a specified depth of soil on the ground surface for a period of several months with monitoring of the settlement to determine when the surcharge can be removed. With adequate surcharge loading, it should be feasible to construct lightly(to possibly moderately) loaded structures in these areas supported by spread footings or reinforced monolithic slab foundations with a certain settlement risk. Heavier loaded structures within the potential subsidence area, and the bridge crossing of the Eagle River, will need to be founded on a relatively deep foundation system that extends down to the coarse granular soils or the Evaporite. FOUNDATIONS We expect lightly loaded spread footings or monolithic slabs bearing on the natural subsoils or properly placed and compacted structural fill should be suitable at the residential building sites, provided these areas are adequately surcharged prior to construction, with some risk of settlement. The risk of settlement is primarily due to the potential for continued subsidence and the compressible soils. Providing several feet of compacted structural fill below the foundations may be needed to reduce the settlement risk or re-establish foundation bearing elevation after removal of existing unsuitable fill materials. Heavier loaded buildings that extend into the compressible soil area will probably need to be founded on piles or piers that extend down to the siltstone/claystone. Steel piles, Job No. 109 028A Ge-gtech - 7- consisting of H-Piles or concrete filled pipe piles, driven to refusal are a feasible deep foundation system and should develop their structural capacity if properly installed. Screw piles may also be a feasible deep foundation system where depths to bedrock or dense coarse granular are shallower than about 50 feet. In shallow bedrock areas, drilled piers may also be feasible for foundation support. The Eagle River bridge should be founded on H-piles driven to refusal in the underlying evaporite. A relatively heavy pile section such as HP 12x53 of HP 12x74 with reinforced tip protection should be used. The piles should develop their structural capacity and develop a working capacity of 12 ksi for 50 ksi ultimate strength steel. The soils and bedrock will probably be at least moderately corrosive to buried steel and some reduction in working capacity should be considered on the design. Additional foundation recommendations for the bridge should be made when preliminary design has been developed. A boring should be drilled at the north abutment area. FLOOR SLABS Slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils or properly placed and compacted structural fill. Surcharge loading or structurally supported floor slabs will probably be needed in the compressible soil area to reduce the potential for floor slab settlement and distress. Existing fill will probably need to be removed below building floor slab areas. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. A minimum 4 to 6 inch thick layer of free-draining gravel should underlie slabs for support and to facilitate drainage. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Job No. 109 028A G tedh - 8 - Shallow groundwater may be encountered in areas of the site. Below grade areas, such as basements, crawlspace and retaining walls, should be protected from wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. Lateral drains below basement floor slabs may also be needed in shallow groundwater areas. The drains should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1%to a suitable gravity outlet or a sump where the water can be collected and pumped. SITE GRADING Surcharge loading of road and underground utility line areas may be needed to limit the potential for distress to the facilities. The need for removal of the existing fill in roadway, parking and underground utility areas should be further evaluated. It may be feasible to partially remove the fill and replace it with structural fill. The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located in the less steep, lower part of the property as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. Cut depths for the building pads and driveway access should not exceed about 15 feet. Fills should be limited to about 15 feet deep and be properly placed and compacted. Some settlement of deeper fill areas should be expected. Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95%of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Deeper fills or fills below building areas should be compacted to at least 100% structural Proctor density. Prior to fill placement,the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20%grade. Most of the on- site soils excluding debris, topsoil and oversized rocks should be suitable for use in embankment fills. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2(horizontal) to 1 (vertical) or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other means. The Job No. 109 028A GATtech - 9 - existing relatively high cut slope below Highway 6 has been graded between about 1!to 2 1/2(h)to I (v). The slope will probably need to be re-graded or retained for adequate long term stability. We should review preliminary site grading plans and perform additional analyses as needed. SURFACE DRAINAGE The grading plan for the development should consider runoff from uphill slopes through the project and at individual building and other structure sites. Water should not be allowed to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. To limit infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the buildings for a distance of at least 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time., We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and preliminary recommendations submitted in this report are based Upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings located as shown on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the widely spaced exploratory borings and variations are expected. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report,we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves,we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation Job No. 109 028A GLV te'C#"1 - 10- of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the preliminary recommendations presented herein. We recommend additional borings to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the individual building sites as well as on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. David A. Young, P.E. Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DAY/ksw Job No. 109 028A Gggtecti ,-,,,,,,.----,--,--,•.7-7,.7.-,?...,..-•,:-.--7'..'7.77----1,..:Wr-t.i-..,...,'r47,-4*,.....1.71 —,x,—..,---••--------,,,.. ..-Dgm,„..r,r,./.r.fwp...-w.f.s.,..11/7'''.•'0,..' . . . • \ •- .....-' -,-- ..-:,, ,''. - .,,, ,..4,34,4,..F.,..e..0,..r.:,..rit 0 ..... w,...-:.','.1.,'.-. ,),,,gto,,,y4;*:,,,,,,,,...,:,,,v,.. .,-fff,..',, ' -. .'• ':,:'.../.." '; .•'.' ..•' f''•-••.,V,,litf,;:f XtUS.441' '±±illiV A.40;101"'''''',-,•q-A`A•al-V-•-:."!:-./.,/,/•;---4- ,..,..•,./0„•,f;-. ,. ,....','",..,---''.''--- ."--,:''.-•,/ fir, -f„kVA,'=_ff'''ffkA.,.4„,„*...,,,,,v4.4 1!...p., %.-;41 ,,,t.-4.-k4%.04-.;., .-:',i:‘, .: .'-. •.,.,..1•:-.- .- . •-.:-.' /.-..4i$.4i-.,;i0:-.4.,c.449.,-,e4.:4, II T,8 c-E. co 0 i'"'-±' '.01.±3"./±'";,'.t.:01'elliii.., "•i'',.','''''" ' -..'‘i ' ''''.'"J'''^'1:.^a3±:''''YJAA,R.WOVIN,4*±:'"lik,“1"47 '±`50 0 **4l**-t,1 Az,.4.,!V.,;,7.kP".-.9vt,4 g 4-,e4e-t.7"o.-,.t.,.174i,.1i%rv.r,..'klt,,f,t)`1i,vZcs4ii t-40.,v.zt,v-z7i.,,:.(tp.,i4-,).44,.;tV,••i,i?2ie.0,1,.'.*„:V-6:4c9-1..:,oi.154.:?44:,t.`-'rvi44.io;i.'f-p.14''4i,i.Mt,Y:;,o•7./01d,,.,,41ts2g,I4±r0 zZ.I`i„mi•,l,,fip,.,1,'wfi,-.zc5tii,"l,),,:Fh./,,,,‘1,,;1/-.,:N/',,:.,..-,..1'v-....w-.":iY',,',.,,„.-;,;,....4,.,,:,,,-,.-,c,.-f.,,±.1.---,:,...,l.'..''.,'',--.'..;..--..--.-,:",-.-:--,-.-..%..;=.?..:.:'.....-..;'.....-f:-.4...:-,4— :.-:...li: y.,:c::*-vi3t.*.,.:,,:4t.3$ili.-l!i..a.'4,1,--,-g,r''.;-'.,tA,7',a::i4t.f:t,.s-„,i.:-.k,,...e0.-.-,.?74i,,4.2.-i.:g`4M.1‘4-.:*t1,,,:,0.,f.,,.:.,.k,.,.-:..4,„4..4.1:,'-4*W;i;„. 1.,.e..t.:A;,+tA;..1-„.-,•.4V..v,#....4fq44,g,.'or;,-t:,:e.V4. ,;,frt'f;') ;,-": •••*,;'•%`,Sr.:',""4''''''' ',,,l'- •' ‘,'-:,_iff.7..•,-"ff.4.1.7=4),IF.WPOlf3t ,cretf=A15•11/0,:if-:' .1 TO • C WI '6 - g 1.9 ..,..af,,,:f4,!.,:k1;,,•-f-1-.4'4,,,‘,„,,-ty/,',X'.4.1-,--',/,',.`,$:41,031 i,‘„ 1., -...-44.!%..ti.,t,t,75.•;_;,•,4,1“.---fx..,,,;.-,ye,,-,,f,,:i 9,t1 i:of:.-,-4., tti g fa ,,,, 13 e•Eff'.,7,1,,,_,A".;fri-14.:',`,,t77.?ff, ::-'....;.:41";A) if, ', ' -4 ; _'''.„ -fa,-tf.".•3''!"-41412;if..1'.:5:44.4:f4":'''''44:1',al A'f.."' ' 1 U- ....... E E. .0 -E 15 110 ili.n5 •,3 ,,t o ,-) 2 8 6 Et.3 - rz CO S2 ' -• -(1;44, ilt.,,.. ,,2„111 (....,..,:..:0:1 ' / ..,,,,,,-.,10„:44-4. 10k-7 .-"‘ff, eLit L - •' ' ,z,...:"-",•14.-...w.v-z....4pr., ---filt f ''. f`f --1 47—-6 Co 3.9- w e,•g TF, ? 1 . r, 1 E., E k•2 g ..E t t' A fl- kiy-k/...,•4,.•,:0.7'; , "A" I*. 0 if a / ....,•,..44-..#0,4, ,,....ttT.„.... :-,,o - .:,-:,' 4,..44 ..•-riff*,,,,:f. r.4, kokOftfffli?4,-.; 1 -iti,;4,41A/e,,,. .i.-•g.1,-`:''''4'.'.y 1 • .fyiliri;•'''Ift'V4‘7.''.....44-. to ' ' 0 - sr,,,,, ke.,..4,...A.,„..,..,,,•, t..),,Atoirt-, .--.1 ,9,../ 16 • ) 117k#AtA;'!**sk',;',;(,:k1A .i...# ' E, . ' ' 'p . ,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,.14,,,,,,,,!...,,,,,,,•:.,.....,„,... .:, 4 -...44-..;em:1,;.';',1:C. -0,.. T • - . i (topir 4,:r.-..;::.79- • t-,t Ct o.0. 1:4, .,-,..•: ... .- -,-, c - 4,.... -......t.,:.1-,:,:,,,,,tit,,,,,..„,,o,.,,,,::, -. ..:,., .,.•I,:, t*--,...77.7.,:.•:;:--,.'1,74.1,- -t,.4 0,.--,-..:.-• .-.,- -- ' •- - ,;';-.;stitTlil.,44;F:, :z.'3'z5.'tY';'4',?.-,4+ 0 i 5, ...tio:::"..-i;:hyf i•;•41`ivii?,,:.:,..:-! 4:0 ...,,,.., .,...„......-,....Li•,,,-i . , at , • 't!-.i, -.44._.irc,,,,„ 1441,,,,-„...e.;'.'4,4zip,;3p;=; , . tr•-," -t,......-4,ii,.k,,,,,,z,,,,,t.,,q11,4-.,,, i 0 S. u) 0 0) Th 75 71 c 04 ?, 0 to ; A > > -0 ';PiP ill )11111141 t c .§.-ul w la t-4- -- -- a .. ;13 E E , -;;' : °{2 .22 : os - E co. , *.'="AkicIte,1;,..h.40.s?,.(-,.: 0 ti•R ea 2 .„,-.4..w.1,. .., , r, , y., .... A.5.,‘,..kii, • ,.-1-;_.k,5,.VA f4. ,4.,±"±"A kl,fr.4,, „,:;±:±:,4 c,.., 0 0 0 ±4I,±121.14',q,00: ''' . ' . /14 JAW WO,"'.i '";::: ±A 7-•-•'• 1 'f'-f-'- fk,,f-444.t)L'''J (D'C ' • . . prr,7,,,, ,t,--,1:44: ' *4-'', - if:- .?,'‘i . , . . ., , • .,',-,',r.,44,,,,AfVfirftig...'-:- ,- -•-, '11:•!`f.1.1 l'Aift0itork,14 6.IL • ,'","''''...S, '-I.-«,,,,a;:-_-,1014.:4-4,71 -.. ; :c.. ,4 ,f. r., :e .4 . 1,2. , . - '''','":', 41,<*eGV1,114telf:' '''''. ... Igqq.??;111 2 m .. 4,,,*-Pe'-'..li,',--4',-.51*.i..47"A`A,... . -1 . ,,,-;49,42'; tiailita4,,Pq4,,,..ii'S:-.-,'...i -4'"±VI'll,"*IV±:Atil 1 a 0 , • . - , ' c...... ..i*fly.,..tfi Ar."114.1 :'4I3!lf'*:.4-tru.."*414,°441fCf' :.• ' " 'Iffliftt OVA 0,O.ii,t I) x-ai?,-- •Ik•.., - ,,o-,r,,r,-,,..,.,.,--+lz-iv -0 g 2 tiyot*A'0,-.; ;,`-\ViiillVili' . e Ofollit44,,C1WAt ' f*.'i:•'.• ta .> 1 LL f15;•''''''''',:'-' -'.-Aif-A.,„'41,4f-Vs!..1414/,,,P'*Z.:5'fl'',., '• kl ° 01 0 Ii010:,.: (4i'; *1-' 0 ' .(e .. ' 3 . , -,,<.,,'INtiW....;;'f. ..7:1,&ej.it,V.,,rv,,,,,,,...4 g •v, . ..e, 2 -ex CU . W ' g'ftii,\*-L'1• 015'7,,..,_.'''''k' :,"'.40.C74,/j14 :14:$': 11/ 0 Z 40 l'' iliti.tq4:410 . . ;,74,:::A-117',,;!,',1/4.0..,(i,:er6,2-6.,.;44,4-,,,,,;„«,-,14;4,*2.4,z1,S.4=N 'i• ,, m 5 TS *),t'V,,.....;',.,,-rFa kit&-m,,, ,,....,47.j.. .• .„,„:,;.;-,z,‘ ta, i = L. .t, I .ieji.;r41...f. ...-,i'::.1liT,Lcii-1,146,4),, ' ' *:',.,4',',„.:7...1..,•:F6.0.1'45,,,,,;A:r7,,,,,,,,.464:41;.":,,. ;,- .., a 1 .. 0. ir' ' ':',..';:•///'‘''',P,44:-. .., • s i•-...• -,.,,4, 4),,,-. 4..*,-, ..e . p.---0,1/ix troNY.:,•,- f* ' q.:4,:- :'I''''..t- '".",'AfQ '' ... f%f f '• . et f,,, ;,.g ---- ''-`1-''-'"4'•' "ft4..,.:.-A.I.,., fre,/,,,,454:,;-.44 '',Iff-. R••-,,I• 8 0,, . a ti i set410 iti k 4 B and B Property F Gertech igure 1 109 028A HEPWORTH-PA**GEOTECHNICAL Location of Exploratory Borings and Project Site Geology Map BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 BORING 5 ELEV.=7130' ELEV.=7135' ELEV.=7143' ELEV.=7142' ELEV.=7144' 0 /12 28/16/12,30/5 ♦ WC 27.3 0 6/12 352/12 WC 264.0 r 31/12 -200=18 — — WC=16.1 18/12 PI=rw 11 12=6.6 ` 21/12 — � DD=109 III 100/2 � DD= 20?,17 WC=9,5 - - � 200=33 ' -200=27 — 0 +4=40 — 10 • 12 ✓ 6/12 16/12 200=11 100 4/6,12/4� lj'1WC=30.0 � WC=14.7 (d' 26/12 - - 8 — - DD=95 4DD=116 - - 1 �2 ` 90/12 ^w. 9/12 -200=66 4_ — // WC=76.5 ■ 33/12 —.010 DD=51 812 — -200=49 -_- - 20 Plig7/12 . ° ,. 7/12 10/12 20 lei My` 111 WC=66.6 — — DD=42 — 00 0 0 8/12 . — WC=55,2 — DD=64 - 30 a 9/12 -% 106/12 30 0 L...Ca'. 0:1 _ — (p15/12 WC=26.4 i17 4rzTl1 _ cp DD=96 e — 40 40 — s a) f44 0 a) 0 no ELa _ 0 OP - 50 12/12 50 — Otil — 60 d Pra , 6Q _ . � ; DRAFT _ rBoring 2 continued — _ � �1_— 70 _ 4: _ _ 80 Bottom Depth of Boring 2 at 94' 80 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3 with boring notes on Figure 4. H LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 109 028A Cl�h SOUTH SIDE AREA Figure 2 Hepworth—Powlok Geotechnical LEGEND: Asphalt;about 4 inches thick encountered only at Boring 2. 31 Fill; man-placed variable material ranging from silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles to occasionally sandy silty clay with scattered gravel and cobbles,loose to medium dense,slightly moist to moist,brown and dark brown, mixed with some topsoil. %v Topsoil;organic silty clay, medium stiff, moist, dark brown to black. N /1I Peat; highly organic silt and sand, medium stiff,very moist to wet, black. FT Clay and Silt(CL-ML); sandy, stiff, moist,brown. G Sand (SM); silty to very silty,typically clayey,with highly organic Peat zones or layers, scattered gravel and cobbles, loose to medium dense, moist to wet, mixed brown and grey-brown. 7 Sand and Silt(SM-ML);stratified and interlaid,occasionally clayey,with scattered gravel and small cobbles, ft medium dense/stiff,very moist,grey-brown. Milt Gravel and Cobbles(GM);with boulders, sandy,silty to slightly silty,dense, moist, light brown, rocks are primarily zrj subrounded to rounded. Siltstone/Claystone; medium hard to hard, moist,grey to brown, occasionally gypsiferous. Eagle Valley Evaporite. I Relatively undisturbed drive sample;2-inch I.D.California liner sample. IllDrive sample;standard penetration test(SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample,ASTM D-1586. 5/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 5 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. °,8 Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken. Fluctuations in free water level may occur with time. --> Depth at which boring had caved immediately following drilling. T Practical drilling refusal.Where shown above bottom of log,indicates that multiple attempts were �? made to advance the boring. :,✓'» Indicates slotted PVC pipe installed in boring to depth shown. ��M�' 109 028A �1 LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 3 Hepworth—PowIok Geatechnicol NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on March 11, 12 and 19, 2009 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level.The logs of the exploratory borings were drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated.No free water was encountered in Boring 3. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC =Water Content(%) DD = Dry Density(pcf) +4 = Percent retained on the No.4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No.200 sieve • LL= Liquid Limit(%) P1 = Plasticity Index(%) NP = Non-plastic TOIR" 109 028A �" h NOTES OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 4 Hepworth—Powlok Geotechnkol Moisture Content percent Dry Density= pcf Sample of: Silt and Sand (Peat) From: Boring 2 at 25 Feet 0 2 Compression ----upon \ 4 wetting c o • 0 • 2 6 2 E 0 c.0 8 10 • 12 14 16 • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf M 109 028A ``' ' ' h SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 5 Hepworth—Pawiak Geotechnical Moisture Content= 14.7 percent Dry Density= 116 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay and Silt From: Boring 4 at 10 Feet 1 No movement o pon L 2 wetting U 3 4 5 • a• Olt o.i 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A - ~stech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6 Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnicol Moisture Content = 30.0 percent Dry Density = 95 pcf Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand From: Boring 2 at 10 Feet 1 0 1 No movement -c7) '`'upon 2 a wetting U • 3 4 • 6 • • - - 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf eeirstech109 028A SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 7 Hepworth—Powk k Ge otechnical Moisture Content= 66.6 percent Dry Density= 42 pcf Sample of: Silt and Sand (Peat) From: Boring 4 at 20 Feet 1 0 1 Compression " upon 2 wetting O .6 3 a • E • 0 U 4 5 6 7 DRAFT 8 9 10 11 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A 11(4 e ['1 SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8 Hepworth—Pawlak Gectechnfcal DRAFT IHYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 HIN . 7 .in TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 0 45 MIN.15 MIN.60MIN19MIN.4 MIN.1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4" 1 1/2" 3" 5"6" 8" 100 1 10 i 90 1 I 20 . 80 30 I 1 . 70 1 i Li Z 40 - 1 60 Z C9 N I 1 w . 1 n4 a . h- 50 50 Z w w V 0 CC w Cl- 60 -1 40 O. 1 1 70 t 1 30 , 7 . ', frAir--'' . . .. . , . , „ . 80 20 1 1 90 1 10 1 100 J . 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 152 203 12.5 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND COBBLES FINE 1 MEDIUM j COARSE FINE RRAVEL COARSE GRAVEL 40 % SAND 49 % SILT AND CLAY 11 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sand and Gravel FROM:Boring 5 at 7 Feet ate109 028A C` `�"'� GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 9 Hepworth-Powlok Geotechnicol a Iv0 CC a ate., .`3 ,++, p u Cy e-Ig yy,, c❑ va z a t....� dam) al N i+'"'' y, �-+ �' to U r4 v1 c(4 r7) V) U bu c# i v) zW yx z Q z n 00 2 °: Z 0 Z in U Li N Z J S.J. x 00 Q w z Z U cd _' cc = w m t- U f— cc 2 II-- cc ¢ o a? N Ill Q LI LI Y CC 5 r-+ o E ci ZW Wm J 5 WC7WCrN QQw 0Z8 M N r-4 W 13- O O. 2 N cc cc o a Z Z C' a O w _ V) oa Q J 0 W K g — ,,1. O ,O Q C3 - V- CT WI W C ~ �- Z K a g O W _ — O V') N 'Zt O P-- WOO M V1 z 5 u ‘.0 • Cn O N in N e—.I ti0 [� Oi x Z 0 V) 0 0 N. l N NW U a 9 J W a 2 2 0 tn cc #2 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. 7 GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT, - '", PROPOSED EAGLE RIVER MEOWS HIGHWAY 6 AND LAKE CREEK ROAD., NEAR EDWARDS, '-\ ', 'Y`i EAGLE COUNTY, CO lORADO • \\ i ,,,, JOB NO:;1.,09 028A `~ '�MARCH 314009--.,,_.,, (7,:\ / Ns, \ Y /*/'''''\``,, '>:\ z'.- � PREPARED FOR: 4i `, \r.) THE ATIRA GROUP i-_• ATTN: LANCE BADGER 56EDWARDS VILLAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 225 4 ti`"'' EDWARDS,COLORADO 81632 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - I - SITE CONDITIONS -2- TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE BASINS " -3 - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION -4- tl REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING -4- EVAPORITE TECTONIC AND GEOMORPHOLOGY `„ ``, -5 - REGIONAL EVAPORITE COLLAPSE CENTERS 7 -5 - INTERMEDIATE SIZE SUBSIDENCE FEATURES �',... ., %� - 5- �s Age of River Terraces -6- Subsidence Features c, - 7- SMALL SINKHOLES •~. `-., - 7- GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS '` >r , '''• 4'' -8- PROJECT SITE GEOOLOG : ;` - 8- FORMATION ROCK �\ ; �`` - 8 - Eagle Valley Forivation(Fe)' -9- Eagle Valley Evaporite:,('gee) ;,: ., / SURFICIAT;_S01LS AN :LANDFORNIS -9- Man-DisturbedcGround city, - 10- Subsidence Deposs'(Qs) ` ; 4 - 10- Alluvial Fans al - 11 - Colluviu3n(Qc) , _ - 11' - t7 GEOLOGIC SITEASSI S'•MENT - 12- EAGLE RIVER'`AND,LAKE CREEK FLOODING - 12- ALLUVIAL FANLOODING - 12- CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY - 13 - EVAPORITE RELATED GROUND SUBSIDENCE - 13 - SINKHOLE POTENTIAL - 14- EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS - 15 - LIMITATIONS - 16- REFERENCES - 17- FIGURE 1 —PROEJCT SITE LOCATION AND TRIBUTARY DRAINAGES FIGURE 2—ATIRA'S ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN FIGURE 3—GEOLOGOCALLY YOUNG FAULTS AND HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES FIGURE 4—REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP /...:'..•,„ FIGURE 5—WESTERN COLORADO EVAPORITE REGIO/N/ FIGURE 6—PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY MAP 'r( •,, ; , „, ., ,. FIGURE 7-PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY MAP / . APPENDIX A .. . . ,..\\,,:,,‘,4, / \ ... . \,:,'''\:.----•,..:::::7,,,,„, ,-, >-•••. -...-•••• ,-, ',. \\ v '.-Ii -7 -........ ./ //:\ N. s,• • , ),,::---/ ,,, ., 'i•. 'k ...,.\ , j 1 1 Job No. 109 028A GerteCh PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the findings of a geologic site assessment for the proposed Eagle River Meadows development near Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is located north of the intersection of Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road as shown on Figure 1 and also referred to as the B &B property. The study was conducted to evaluate the geology in the project area and assess if there are geologic conditions that could be potentially hazardous or could present major constraints to‘proposed proposed development. The study was performed as part of our February 25, 2009 agreerrrent'for professional services to The Atira Group. A field reconnaissance of the project area was performed on 1VMrch 9, 2009`fo observe the geologic conditions. The project site was partially coverea`with snow at that time. In • addition to our geology assessment we`alsowperformed a prelimm/ary geotechnical engineering study of the proposed southern.deve opment,areaE(Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 2009). T e:geotechnical study',tncluded five exploratory borings in the area of the site south'ofthe Ea'le:River. In addition,..to:our field reconnaissance;o'ur geologic assessment included review of public ed regional geological reports and aerial photograph interpretations. Based on this information;.,an assessment:of the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development:was made. This report summarizes the information evaluated and presents our findings. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT At the time of this study the project was in the conceptual planning stages. The proposed development will include a medical campus and a multi-family residential complex. The proposed illustrative development plan is shown on Figure 2. The total project area cover about 105 acres. The low-lying area on the Eagle River valley floor that is prone to flooding will be open space/recreational areas. The open space/recreational areas covers Job No. 109 028A C r ec 1 -2- about 64 acres. The higher ground to the south of the river that was the site of the old B and B gravel pit will be the site of the medical campus commercial buildings and some residential buildings. The south development area covers about 24 acres. The northern development area covers about 17 acres. It will be the site of the community center and additional multi-family residential buildings. A bridge will be constructed over the Eagle River to provide access from the south development area to the north development area. It is expected that the medical buildings will be multi-story structures with moderate foundation loads and the residential buildings will be multi-story structures with light to /\., moderate foundation loads. Grading plans were not available at'tlie.time of this study but relatively extensive grading will probably be required.,If the project facilities differ substantially from those described above, we should be notified so that we may'Jdetermine if the actual development is consistent with the ihtent4of ourr finding presented/in this report. ,.\ w SITE`C;OIYD'ITjONS \ `\ 2/ The 105 acre project site`is.lo,cated in the Eagle valleyust downstream of Edwards as shown on Figured.Interstate Highway I-7a;and the inactive tracks of the Union Pacific railroad borde the proje�site on the no:; -h( r Highway 6 borders the project site on the south. T1je.Eagle RiverrPreserve is'-located to the east and private land is located to the wes:r'The general�topography at the project site is shown on Figure 7. The Eagle River valley,,floor at the project sitein nearly level and has a slope of less than 1 percent (about 11 fe wn ettper mile)do to the west.The valley floor lies about 4 feet above the , f river and is subject'to flooding. The south development area is the site of the old B &B gravel pit and curreiitly'the site of the operating B &B ready mix concrete plant. The floor of the old gravel pit lies about 10 feet above the river valley floor and the pit floor is up to about 60 feet deep along its south side. The pit walls are typically up to about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). The pit floor is nearly level. Several stockpiles and two sediment detention ponds are present on the pit floor. Slopes are varied in the north development area. Much of this area is on moderately sloping alluvial fans with maximum slopes of about 10 percent. The moderate fan slopes abruptly transition to steep hillside with slopes in the range of 20 to 60 percent north of I-70. The river valley floor is poorly Job No. 109 028A G -3 - drained,undeveloped ground vegetated mostly in grass with patches of willows and cottonwood trees. The gravel pit at the south development area is unvegetated ground. The alluvial fans in the north development area are mostly vegetated with grass. Sage brush and other brush grow on the adjacent hillsides. TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE BASINS Several drainage basins are tributary to the project site and ' elude the Eagle River,Lake Creek,Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch as shown on F'igur'L.. The Eagle River basin • up stream of the project site covers about 2,900 squarkaniles and heacls`at an elevation of around 13,500 feet in the Sawatch,Gore and Ten ile Ranges. The Lake„Geek drainage basin up stream of its confluence with the Eagle River coversabout 330 square miles and heads at elevations of around 13,500 feet in the Sawatch Range. Floods along the Eagle River and Lake Creek are usually assooatect with heavy snowpack melt and runoff in late May and early June. A small alluvial fari,1ias deveioped at the;mount of Lake Creek e which is unusual for Eagle River tributarieswitivdfamagb basins as large as Lake Creek. The fan is likely related.to•geologically young ground subsidence as discussed in the Evaporite Tectonic and,Geombiphology section ofthis report. Beard Creek and-the stream in Deadhorse`Gu lch are intermittent streams associated with seasonal groundwater`discharge�from-springs, snowpack melt, and runoff from unusually heavy thunderstorms. Surface cree flow•was present in both drainages at the time of our 1 field study in'mid•March 2009. Beard Creek has a drainage basin that covers about 1,358 acres (about 2.1 square miles) and heads at an elevation of around 10,200 feet in the Read and White Mountain)area to the north of the Eagle River. Deadhorse Gulch has a drainage basin that covers about 158 acres(about 0.3 square miles)and heads at an elevation of around 8,400 feet. Small alluvial fans are present at the mouths of both streams. Their drainage basins have roughness coefficients(Milton numbers)of 0.38 for Beard Creek and 0.43 for Deadhorse Gulch. The fan area to basin area rations are 0.5 percent for Beard Creek and 1.8 percent for Deadhorse Gulch. These geomorphic characteristics are associated with basins that produce debris flood but typically do not Job No.109 028A Gggtech -4- produce debris flows. A discussion of debris flood and debris flow characteristics and nomenclature is presented in Appendix A. Embankment fills on Beard Creek Road, Interstate Highway 1-70 and the railroad have been placed across the Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch drainages in their lower parts. Stream flow in these two drainages is conveyed below the embankment fills in culverts that are about 48-inch diameter. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Five exploratory borings were drilled in the south develop ne t`area at the locations shown on Figure 7 as part of our preliminary geotechnical engineer'ingstudy(Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, 2009). Logs of the boringsleannd related information ate presented in that report. The report may be referred to for de`iails°of that study. Becaus e ffproperty ownership and access issues, exploratory borings have, "o£been drilled in the north development area. When these issues;have,been resolved\borings are planned to be drilled in the north development area. ,, `, �' /y "�. l/' // ` :/•,/ s / /-REGiONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located in,the.S�outhern.Roc •` Mountains about 20 miles to the west of the Rio Grande'rift, "see, Figuret3x,The riftis a north-trending geomorphic and extensional tectonic:r gion that started`to develop'about 29 million years ago. In this part of Colorado'the rift coincides;with the Blue River valley that lies between the Williams Fork Mountains on the east and the Park,Gore and Tenn ile Ranges on the west, see Figure 4. The main regional geologic structures in the project area are the Bums syncline and smaller syncline ;ta the north and the Sawatch Range uplift to the south. These structures developed during the Laramide orogeny about 40 to 80 million years ago. Pennsylvanian-age evaporites (Pze) in the Eagle Valley Evaporite and Eagle Valley Formation are the near surface formation rock in the project area. The evaporites were deposited in the Eagle basin that was part of the northwest-trending central Colorado trough during the ancestral Rocky Mountain orogeny about 300 million years ago. The evaporites form the western Colorado evaporite region, see Figure 5. A discussion of Job No. 1 09 028A G— '1 - 5 - evaporate tectonics and geomorphology in the project area is presented in the following Evaporite Tectonic and Geomorphology section of this report. EVAPORITE TECTONIC AND GEOMORPHOLOGY The geomorphologic features in the project region related to evaporite tectonic include (1) Iarge scale regional collapse centers that cover hundreds of s5u`are miles, (2) intermediate scale subsidence features that cover tens to severa`I;hundreds of acres and(3) small sinkholes that are typically between 30 and 250 feet in diameter. 7 ry REGIONAL EVAPORITE COLLAPSE CENTERS "'^ ` The project site is located on the eastern side of the Eagteccollapse center that is the eastern of two large evaporite collapsec`enters in the western Colorado evaporite region, see Figure 5. The Eagle collapse centeris a roughly,circular shaped area that covers about 960 square miles. As much as 4,000;feyliegio110.1-stbsidence is believed to have occurred during the past-10 nnllion years in the vicinity o Eagle as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaponte,from beneath the Eagle,cgllapse center(Lidke and Others, 2002). Much of the evaporite related'subsidetiee in the Eagle collapse center appears to have occ. ''withiiithe past `million yeah w hich also corresponds to high incision rates along the Eagle and Colorado Rivers(Kunk and Others,2002). This indicates that average long term subsidence rates ve been very slow,between about 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 1& years. It is uncertain if regional evaporite subsidence is still occurring or if it is currently niactiv,,e, Estill active, these regional deformations because of their very slow rates should notjtave a significant impact on the propose development. INTERMEDIATE SIZE SUBSIDENCE FEATURES The intermediate size evaporite subsidence features and other geologic features in the project area are presented on Figure 6. This map is based on our field observations, aerial photograph interpretations and information from several of our previous projects in the Job No. 109 028A G&tech - 6- Edwards area. The map is a modification of regional geology maps by Lidke(1998)and Tweto and Others(1978). There are four intermediate size subsidence features in the vicinity of Edwards. The approximate age of the subsidence features and subsidence rates can be estimated based on the inferred age of the Eagle River terraces in the Edwards area. These terraces and their deposits are likely related to glacial and interglacial climatic fluctuation during the latter part of the Quaternary about the past 400 thousand years. 1,./ Age of River Terraces r .• ' • The Qtl and Qt2 Eagle River terraces are located within about 6 feet•bf the river and probably formed during post-glacial times, about the past 15 thousand years.':The post- e ; •,,� glacial terraces only occur up stream of the subsidence feat,/res. The Qt3, Qt ja'n/ d Qt5 terraces on the average are 10 feet, 20 feet and 35 feet ab We the river, respectively. These three terraces are associated with-the late Pleistocene;'-age Pinedale glaciations about 15 to 35 thousand years ago. The9t5,terrace forms thebroal,Eagle River valley floor at Edwards and extends up stream to;the EEagle-Vaitarea It also forms the broad Lake Creek valley floor Where it,grades dude ly to Pinedale-age moraines. The Qt5 and younger terraces are absent in theeastern part Of the 420 acre subsidence feature just west of Edwards but are present-in the western part of this subsidence feature and extend downstream to:.tlie vicinity ofWolcott: "Tlismdicates that evaporite subsidence has been active atfhe project siteYsince the late Pleistocene-age Pinedale glaciations. The Qt6 terrace of the average is 100feet aliove the river and is probably associated with the middle Pleistocene-age Buil Lake glaciations about 132 and 302 thousand years ago. Remnants of this"te-race axe present at Edwards, in the Singletree area and near the y confluence of Squaw;Creek and the Eagle River. It is uncertain if this terrace has been affected by evaporite subsidence. The Qt7 terrace lies about 160 feet above the river and is probably associated with pre-Bull Lake glaciations that are older than about 400 thousand years. It is also uncertain if the pre-Bull Lake terrace was affected by evaporite subsidence. Job No. 109 028A Ggglech - 7- Subsidence Features There are four intermediate size subsidence features in the Edwards area that are located along a west-trending zone on the Eagle River valley floor. Subsidence in this zone affects the Qt5, late Pleistocene-age Pinedale terrace and younger river terraces. The four subsidence features are from about 20 to 420 acres in size. The project site is located on the eastern side of the largest, 420 acre subsidence feature. The Qt5 terrace in the eastern part of the 420 acre subsidence feature at the project site has sub e.about 100 feet since the Qt5 terrace formed between about 15 to 35 thousaniyears ago. This indicates a long-term average subsidence rate at the project site of'between about 3 to 8 inches per 100 years. Long-term average subsidence rates inthe western part oft ie;420 acre subsidence feature were considerably less than in,the eastern part. It is uncertain if \ subsidence is still occurring in the 420 acre subsidet�snce,,`feature and in the*flour ` t.V !!v subsidence features in the Edwards area. Development has occurred in these subsidence features during the past 30 years and we are.not aware of subsidence related problems. SMALL SINKHOLES / -� We are aware of s veral`small sinkholes in the�Edwards area and their locations are ?. '\ ! : . / shown on Figure 6. The'diaineter•oftile known sinkholes vary from about 30 to 250 feet in diameter:"Suikhole's were riot observed at the project site during our field review of the project site and we did hot t gbserve,evidence of sinkholes on the aerial photographs. The site was pa tly,covered with snow at the time of our field review and possible sinkholes may have been-obsccured by the snow cover or grading operations. Most of the known sinkholes in the Edwdrd%area are located to the north of the Eagle River in the Cordillera Valley Club area. The closest known sinkhole to the project site is located about 500 feet to the east of the intersection of Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road near the original old school house. The sinkhole was apparent about 30 years ago but has subsequently been backfilled and is no longer evident at the ground surface. Job No. 109 028A G��tech - S- GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS Geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Eagle 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 that are less than about 15,000 years old,not related to evaporite tectonics and considered capable of generating large aeaarthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift to the east of the project site, see Figure 3!The northern section of the Williams Fork Mountains fault zone Q50 is located about,27 nules'to the northeast and the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone Q56bffs located about.53,•miles to the southeast. At these distances large earthquakes tale range of M6.5 on''the two geologically young fault zones should not produce strongg�round shaking at/the project site that is greater than the ground shaking shown onthe i S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazards Maps(Franiceland Others, 2002) \ PROJECT SITE:GEOLOGY,' The geology at the•project site iS shown on Figure,7. This map is an enlargement of the \ \ I r.,... `t/ Project Area Geology Maps,;,Figure 6 The.near.surface formation rocks at the project site are the middle Pennsylvanian-fie Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite which are usually covered''by man;placed fill, and a variety of surficial soil deposits. The geologic'mapr.units shown\pill,Figure 7 are described below. FORMATION ROCV ' The Eagle Valley Formation(Qc/Pe)and Eagle Valley Evaporite(Qc/Pee) are present around the rim of the 420 acre subsidence feature at the project site and the contact between these two formations is present below the surficial soil deposits at the project site. The Eagle Valley Formation is a translational facies between the mostly evaporite rocks in the Eagle Valley Evaporite and the clastic rocks in the Maroon Formation. The evaporite minerals in the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite are Job No. 109 028A Gegtech - 9- relatively soluble in circulating groundwater and solution of the evaporite has resulted in the subsidence features and sinkholes discussed previously in the Evaporite Tectonics and Geomorphology section of this report. Eagle Valley Formation(Pe) The Eagle Valley Formation(Pe) is exposed locally in the railroad cuts near the northern property line.At the railroad cut outcrops the bedding strikes to thenortheast and northwest and has dips between 11 and 28 degrees to the nortltSt and southeast, See Figure 7. The Eagle Valley Formation is described as ddi h brown,reddish-gay, gray, light-green and tan interbedded shale, claystone,'siltstone and-fine-grained sandstone with common distinctive, dark-to light-gray,finely crystalline limestone beds usually less than 6 feet thick(Lidke, 1998). raporite beds E� are locally present,in the Eagle Valley Formation. ''\ ,./ 41/ \\ 4 Eagle Valley Evaporite(Pee) y \' The Eagle Valley Evaporite(Pee)is present on t e valley side Jto the southwest of the south development area but-does not crop o In't-a`t'`the Piaje,et2Site. It was encountered in the five exploratory borings in the south development area at depths between 2 and 92 feet below, th/e,ground surface.;The Eagle Valley Evaporite is described as light to dark�gray and white evaporite�sequence consisting mostly of gypsum with interbed of tan-weathering, light-'to dark-gray shale and clayey limestone,tan very fine grained\Sandstone and,red.silty sandstone(Lidke, 1998). \\y\t y i SURFICIAL SOILS.ANDJL�ANDFORMS i" Surficial soil deposi s and landscape features in the project area are largely associated with cyclic deposition and erosion related to glacial and interglacial climatic fluctuations during the latter part of the Quaternary, about the past 400 thousand years. Relatively large areas of man-disturbed ground related to gravel mining,highway and road construction and railroad construction are present at the project site. Job No. 109 028A tech - 10- Man-Disturbed Ground (af) Gravel mining of the Qt4 and Qt5 terrace alluvium in the B &B pit (af)has substantially modified the natural geomorphic features in the south development area and fill embankments have been constructed across Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch just to the north of the north development area. These fill embankments have modified these two drainages as previously discussed in the Tributary Drainage Basins section of this report. Man-placed fill(af)was encountered in four of the five explo a ory borings drilled in the south development area where the fill thickness was between 5 and'16 feet. The fill is variable but typically consists of rounded, gravel-to/boulder-size rocks in a clayey to silty sand matrix. In places topsoil is mixed with the/ . Penetratio n resistance values are / ` �' typically 20±9 blows per foot. In the northern part`of the• oath developmet�area the fill has been pushed out over the subsidence deposits (Qs\y az d,over the Lake Creek alluvial fan(Qal). `�; "r Subsidence Deposits The nearly level Eagle/River:valley floor between the north and south development areas is underlain by sub idence deposits(Qs). Theesu idence deposits are poorly drained and typically have groundwater.;witkit few,;feet ogthe ground surface. Pedogenetic soil profiles de,eloped in the subsid'encedeposit a are Ag/Cg profiles(National Resources Conservation Service,`2008). At`the:exploratoryborings, the subsidence deposits are between 35 and 85 feet thi'ckand overlie the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporate. The subsidence;deposits have a two tier stratigraphic. �` } The upper stratigraphic layer at the borings is from 32 to 57 feet thick. This layer consists of low energy, overbank river sediments that were deposited on the floor of the 420 acre subsidence area as the valley floor slowly subsided. These low energy subsidence deposits are made up of interstratified silt, clay and sand with many highly organic layers and gravelly and cobbly layers. Penetration resistance values are typically 13 ±8 blows per foot. Job No. 109 028A Ggsetech - 11 - The lower stratigraphic layer at the borings is from 20 to 28 feet thick. This layer consists of high energy river alluvium and represents the initial phase of subsidence of the Qt4 and Qt5 terrace deposits. It is likely that subsidence rates were greater during deposition of the lower stratigraphic layer than the subsidence rates during deposition of the younger upper stratigraphic layer. The lower layer is made up of gravel, cobbles and boulders in a mixed sand and silt matrix. Alluvial Fans(Qal Qf) ,. 7 4 Relatively large alluvial fans(Qfl)that have developedafithe moutbs'of Lake Creek, •Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch are present adjacent to the nearly level'valley floor and underlie parts of the north and south development areas: Small alluvial'f s(Qt)are present next to the larger Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch fans in the nort development area. In Boring 1, locafed'in the Lake Creek fan,the fan deposit is 21 feet thick and is overlain by 16 feet of man-placed:fill. The fan°deposit in the boring is underlain by high energy river alluvium. `The Lake.Creek-_fan nsists of gravel,cobbles x; ///' J \ and boulders in a silty//safidriiiatrix. Penetration resistance values were between 7 and 9 / r `\ :.;'1 blows per foot in the'Lake Creek fan. Borings,have not yet been drilled in the Beard Creek, Deadhorse Gulch and smaller.�fans in the' orth development area,but these fan ,..�....�_ �` ,"tom'."".....�.,,,...... . -.._.,,..w"i deposits are expectedto be similar to'die.L 'e Creek fan at Boring 1. The Qal4aild,,Qf fans in thi project�area formed during post-glacial times, about the past 15 thousandyears. Pedogenetic soil profiles have either not formed on these fans or, if present, consist o£A/C,A7 k and A/Bw/Ck profiles(National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). The s are geologically active and potential sites of future flooding. Colluvium(Qc) Colluvium that is probably less than 20 feet thick in most areas usually covers the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite in the north development area. The colluvium consists of angular to rounded rock from gravel-to boulder-size that are supported in a matrix of sand,silt and clay. The colluvium formed during post-glacial times, about the past 15 thousand years. Pedogenetic soil profiles have either not formed Job No. 109 028A Gatech - 12- on the colluvium or, if present, consist of A/C, A/Ck and A/Bw/Ck profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered as project planning and design proceeds. These conditions, their potential risks to the proposed development, additional studies to further evaluate the potentialsks and possible mitigations to reduce the risks are discussed below. Foundation bearing conditions and other geotechnical engineering considerations are presented.in our preliminary geotechnical report (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotecluucal,200?). 4. ' , 1 EAGLE RIVER AND LAKE CREEK FLOODING ',4.. The project drainage and storm water management planshould.consider flooding along • the Eagle River and Lake Creek. These two,streams-have-larg drainage basins that head at elevations of around13;50_0 feet in the mountains as previously described in the ( \ ' \: Tributary Drainage Bcisin sectionjof this report;,._The project design flood on the Eagle River will likely cover most'ofthearea mapped'-us subsidence deposit(Qs)on Figure 7. The pro/jject>design.flood on Lake.,Creek macover most of the Lake Creek fan(Qal) sho non Figure 7. It`isow unders ding that buildings and other flood sensitive facilities will not be located'in the project design flood plain of the Eagle River. Design analysis may'alsb show that•luildings and other facilities on the Lake Creek fan may need to be protected with.ale I, ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING The project drainage and storm water management plan should evaluate flash flooding and associated high sediment concentration flows on the Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch alluvial fans(Qal) and the smaller alluvial fans (Qf)in the north development area. Flash floods on these fans, in addition to containing mud and rock debris, will Job No. 109 028A G meth - 13 - likely include brush, logs and other organic debris that have the potential to plug small diameter culverts and subsurface storm drains designed for clear water floods. This potential for plugging should be considered in the design of drainage facilities on these fans. If the culverts in the Beard Creek Road and Interstate Highway embankment fills up stream of the project site were to plug, these embankments will function as debris storage basin. The project drainage and storm water management plan should evaluate if there is sufficient debris storage volumes up stream of these embankments to prevent overtopping by the project design flood. CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILLTY;;, / „ „ Considerable grading will probably be needed fortle.proposed development shown on Figure 2. To reduce the potential for construction related s ope instability it is important the proposed grading be evaluated by'a geotechnical engineer., Preliminary recommendations for site grading are presented in our preliminary geotechnical report (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 2009). '.\ EVAPORITE RELATED GROUND SUBSIDENG Most ofthe-project site,is located,in the eastern part of the 420 acre subsidence feature that is elated to the solution of evaioyife along the Eagle River valley, see Figures 6 and 7. The geology indicates therihas been about 100 feet of ground surface subsidence at the project'site during al, t the past 15 to 35 thousand years which indicates a long- term - `'. average subsidence'ate of between about 3 and 8 inches per 100 years. It is uncertain if subsidence is still occurring at the project site or if subsidence has stopped. If subsidence is still occurring,the soil deposits in the subsidence feature indicate that current rates are likely less that the long-term average rates.We are not aware of subsidence related problems to existing facilities located in the Edwards area subsidence features. Job No. 109 028A GesteCh - 14- In summary, the potential subsidence risks to buildings and other movement sensitive facilities located in the 420 acre subsidence feature appear to be low but development in this area cannot be considered totally risk free. Project planning strategies that may be used to reduce the potential subsidence risks would be to: (1)locate the larger buildings outside of the 420 acre subsidence feature and(2)only locate small buildings on a rigid mat foundation in the subsidence feature. The developer and prospective future facility owners should be advised of the subsidence risk. SINKHOLE POTENTIAL `'"• Geologically young sinkholes are locally prese t""in the Edwards area as shown on Figure 6. The closest is located about 170 feet to thesouth`of the southern proper0ifie near the original old school house. Others are located to the idrth'm the Cordillera Valley Club area. We are not aware of sinkhole development in the Edwards area during historic times but a few sinkholes in the westerd Colorado•evaporite region are known to have collapsed at the ground surface with little or no,wsming,during historic times. This indicates that infrequen sinkhole formationis,still an active geologic process in the region. The likelihoodThat sinkholes will development during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed project,facilities-is,,consid'e to be low and no greater than elsewhere iui the EaglehRiver valle betwee' Edwards and Eagle-Vail. This inference is based'ori the large extenf:,of,sinkhole tune areas in the western Colorado evaporite region ti in comparison to the small number` f sinkholes that have developed in historic times. • Because of the complex• ature of the evaporite related sinkholes, it will not be possible to avoid all sinkhole risfto the proposed development but the risk can be reduced by building site specific studies. The potential for shallow subsurface voids below building and other movement sensitive facility areas should be evaluated as part of subsurface exploration for foundation design. If conditions indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include: (1)stabilization by grouting, Job No.109 028A G1 - 15- (2) stabilization by excavation and backfilling, (3)a deep foundation system, (4) structural bridging, or(5)a mat foundation system. The developer and prospective future facility owners should be advised of the sinkhole risk, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important in reducing the cost of building repair should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction. /7/ ' EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Historic earthquakes within 150 miles of the prop/t'site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes of M 5.5 and less andmaximum Modified Mercalli Intensities of VI and less, see Figure 3. The largest historic earthquake ri the'project region occurred in 1882 (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). It was apparently located in the northern Front Range about 82 miles to the northeast of the project site.and had an`estimated magnitude of about M 6.2±0.3 and a maximum intensity,of Vi. t.:Historic,ground shaking at the project site associated witli.:the 1.882 and the other largerhistoric earthquakes in the region does not appear to have exceeded Modified Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and i...� Rogers, 1985). ModifieOlercalli=Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during ,/ a reasonablejxposure.timeNtbi the proposed buildings and other project facilities,but the i' probability of stronger<ground shmg,is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people ancrcauses general.alarm,bp/results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. ) `l {3!7 `` l/ The project facilitie's,shpuld be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. 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 Maps indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.05g has a 10%exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.16g has a 2% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site(Frankel and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years,respectively. The soil profiles at the project site Job No. 109 028A GAStech - 16- should be considered as Class D,stiff soil sites as described in the 2006 International Building Code unless site specific shear wave velocity studies show otherwise. The earthquake related liquefaction potential at the south development area was evaluated by the Simplified Seed analysis. This analysis indicated that the soil profile at the south development area does not have a liquefaction potential for the 500-year peak ground acceleration of 0.05g. The liquefaction potential at the north deve opment area should be evaluated when borings have been drilled in that area. /' LIMITATIONS ( ` / , . This study was conducted according to generallyacceptedzengineering geology principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make rib Warr y either express:orimplied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this;report are based on our field observations,aerial photograph interpretattonspublished regional,geology information, the currently proposed development plan.a id'our.experience ii,th area. This report has been prepared exclusively.-for our client and\is n evaluation of potential geologic constraints on the prop/e1rty. We.are not responsible for technical interpretations by others l(: of our information: '4., 7 Respectfully'submitted, \ HEPWQRTH- PAWLAK GEOTECH ICAL, INC. -,` t f \ ✓ ; f I/ Ralph G. Mock ' 4 \, Engineering Geolog/ Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P. E. RGM/ksw Job No. 109 028A Gated., - 17- REFERENCES Frankel, A. D. and Others,2002,Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps:U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-420. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 2009,Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Eagle River Meadows Development„ Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road, Near Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado: Prepared for the Atira Group,Edwards, Colorado (Job No. 109 028A, March 31, 2009). // Kirkham,R. M. and Rogers,W. P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake:Data and Interpretations 1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulled 14'6 ... v Kirkham, R. M. and Scott, R. B., 2002,Introduction('Late,Cenozoic4:vaporite tectonism and Volcanism in West-Central/Colorado, in Kirkham.L,,,M., Scott,R. B. and Judkins,T. W. eds.,Late Cenozoic'Evaporite Tectonisim an(Volcanism in West-Central Colorado: Geological S c ety:of A ca Special Pap 366, Boulder, Colorado. `-.;v Y r: Lidke, D. J., 1998, Geology Map of die-Wolcott Quadrangle;Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-265C7`•- N< ;�' `�,, e Lidke,D. J. and Others, 2002,Eagle Collapseenter •I iterpr'etations of Evidence of Late Cenozoic Evaporite_-Related Deformati6n in the g'agle River Basin, Colorado,in Kirkham R. MVM; cott;' :B. and Judkins,T. W. eds.,Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonisimnd'Volcanism?in West-Central,,Colorado: Geological Society of America Speciai.PP 3566 aper ,Boulder, Colorado. Kunk,M,/i';''and~Others,2002 ; 4r/j Ar Ages of Late Cenozoic Volcanic Rocks within %nd Around die Carbondale and Eagle Collapse Centers, Colorado: Constraints is on\the Timing of Evaporate;Rerated Collapse and Incision of the Colorado River, m-T i it ham R. M.,"Scott, R4 and Judkins, T.W. eds.,Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonisim and Volcanism in West-Central Colorado: Geological Society of Amerioa;Special Pa� er 366, Boulder, Colorado. t` 2 National Resources Conservation Service, 2008, Soil Survey of the Aspen-Gypsum Area, Parts of Rio Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin Counties, Colorado: Version 5, June 9, 2008. Tweto, O., 1979, Geology Map of Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey. Tweto, O. and Others, 1978, Geology Map of the Leadville 1 0 X 20 Quadrangle, Northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-999. Widmann B. L. and Others, 1998,Preliminary Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and Data Base of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 98-8. Job No. 109 028A Cgtech • r;'",fii.i: f `.-I r. `•- •`r-="�J^i C(r 11:��. sJf ��f),' J t i I.,P :� a' ?�i°,q�x ` :wj�, ,.i-='F: }17t lit, 1.7/,If : �ifi, ,.-...,44,/,/,,._.,-,-, ,I.5.,...4,\:„:.-..,)t -•°• •�1 ,1 Z� -='r':'f ��•-� � f,� _ 1 �+��1. Z\�''•+���•.�/��/, b � .,�1%. \ ./ rr•� / ��• �.r�1• •+1j n•t I .�1�•!�al ( • � '1 ` .ifLitl�/, pA r _,...-•-:-yy�/h" ;r f / C____ %��" i,':...,- ..:` •%, : ',1i47E�l3/��}Ifi j �. �ilr% F l }, �1r >tia .:r // r"��\-i'.�'.r.:Z't'�—..'•\ 1{ r/.. } { r, r :•r-r s,, � . r ` 'mil _�� !r .., `::'•i,.!A\,1J: 'If .i',. I i.,' ,V,"11 ,'% -;:%7.- OkA',',/,',:n"i, /. R({Q� iy �� '�. ,,! � 1 ,!r``,. /A:k ;,,\ i I' .r r\,fit ,.`�'\��.,,,,, r,.,� ;�.i,\1t� ��4�`al+ � ,a�,�f \;.\"�• �I • 'S '�\ _�11/ !it� `\',���1�� li, i,++, id'1r `•��, i�1��'Jl 1�V � •r�.y4AZg� ---A ,f i tfi%,.• i �-f/ F1 i:1� 1ti'-; �•r�i�' \ , ty• .+ I'k'gli�,.t� ' ii IAIf r;: , 1f' 1 ', / l'%'1 /r' \• ' f,'?it' / ) . '\ tcri ,1( ilt 1l Il ('4''''.nk,`:.A'0111'•1' .!11;r, ';'., .s.r ,r.. f t J�L.,••t '�, / R, /f ) 1 ,i 11 ' ..t.\\ +;�.. t, '.,0:i tt,i+,i .`_��•� _����t�.R_•; .�r��t ;,,• 1 '/`:•"•_ /i7; it ,1 r ` i. r%i•))' I:i '' irp.N.,.A:.;... '\ :1.. kti,�•..`•' k •V.1 `� fi 'J1 i.k\� \�.9,'I�r. 4/ r,j; + \ aro+,:�{4 ./r,1, I !^ .'y 1,: . 1 4�12c� ,..1 ;i:l �. � -/ ./ i �."'_.`-ti. � Ir:! � .1-f� � �, I : ( .�i1. �,:.•�', ,� �1:',i•r�r'�• :� 1/�i �� 1�''� -,I/r`'t. -.�� �:"-'ia�;�� ) �1,.rf'�r,L !' !!.?;l(J� ;1j�.;Y.:°S •:t�;�i�r ,_,�..:,\ 1 � i11 :,Ire'';=.,q1.@+. !/i •`•f/3`\ rjt�t\l \;!l f:i'f {Q. 1....'�t �V4 '�I (•1 r�1 If. % /If :i� }� 1,-'"�;,� 1� ;1,R, 3 :4 't,`'f J 4, •i:l,-rsi, / 1(� ,.;j 7,,,: ,....,, �- r:'i.�''1'/" i , ,\ • S:' •;:i,.i i"?'r 1. ‘• -,aA..•.,...tl'-i k}"t.� .i-r. , , �r Ir �{ t�� t- '1 ,,� I'.1.:.� f ,}:.;ii,',:iyy� r,.., \,1�;'. t�c4i 3.,+ Iv ?r (tl• �,. ,111' it; t �Y/ ;'Cl)•• ( • ' . ~';`%i�'ll'1•e,''.,:l .c.i ii-;'`y'itil�(i ,'i+i,.•'\j*' f a, r ! �1 Ir `� ` 1 I r ( \ '':� �`�':•i,�' -l'r'i, f is,� +r_ ••',t irre„«19 6 !(l 1 \r//r ii,�__.' � i If I , .�r/: 1, t{,'f,'..�'••\.1,�'_:%',.: ..:J !,;'r. :. �'C n i )I,r )./j! 1/ :���31 1,1 `+� ..,�, t(Ji �� �� `{V:-5-. :•''.‹‘.=;'CJ !,''f,;l�'i"i�''\� .1- ,�y,,: :,i� S it 1'�:,',,}';,. .....1V d J �!/ !t ii -=' �\ `\ ll;/1.. 0; ••' ' -'•k'. S ii� 1;'r 8•J y}• f 'I1� + ' l�-• 1 �f `./'/• I �r „ / 'l; '��::� �i.y� ��>.' ,�':':,j1' r t'1'4rl r �!/-' r /J 1 1��!i _yr / ,r :y it s fir• ' : + '•;i( � �(' 't� � I/�I/1�fw(_�`%•= + llt•-•r ' ?_ . -�. �;• h +f"::;'t.:, .,.•'7, / i + •'. •i 11 't 11, ,rVJ -.� IJi• p �-: �; _ .1 fl� t Qr 11N!,r.,` 1i'�: 1:P:/ S(. .1• 1 ' i ,•'7,4 >. ', �J. l il r .,' . � .�r1. ((/, �l(\/•. ,;'�--'' i,\�:�':frt ., �'_ ,; �L r:,i�;_�; 11 ,r1• J' �_`- ., ,(J 1 .,11 t.ilyl r , ,147le r.I •.r. . 1 $ 7, frt.' `7-:•/•;,,il`t.'� I` , r! i , J.h; (a� ;" +,lii�,/ /r ,Y ,. 1 /' t •' � ?ry,l, +f I /,.•,;r�;,`,' a ,..+�'�a } �jI r,(Iiis.`� i''.iy. 1 ;P r i ' r+°/L� rl�P{, f; l;a,:-.. �' ,},. 1'� l�_ '., _./:17;::J�A�:.141; f/�I1:,4, / I '''JI; 1 �.'f✓/1 r �• 1 i.--'�%, ' 1,\` }11 �� jf� t1\ •i,,1 „ .'.:;i. l/•':1 1 r:- : :tS''i'1 / � �rq •1 /J 1 � � " -_.- �'i,, 11 S' �F�. , I "'f:;+1i '�.- 1�i - ,,{ i'•ji:•� i'///���/i "�i, ` :i R i', �y twit ,t tr A'''1r� i,,11 {{ :,,;1h' ,/, . i r .'... ��•�'.;�.'�'' -,:y6;:,� �i .\\ ram • i. ;a ,f ,"1i,rf.J ( �Jr t/�' �C7%� I,''..'e t )� i1i \ M� / 1 (i , ��r,• II,� : ! �?/i,lLYr"-2' � �'" ` ,.1, `:,17 �.(1 / ,' •r-(!Nn\./ F,a t/_/'�,��` 4, ,(�i$•5i aC.'�. '..",1.'_'..-`::/.,'.....7 ,,, r ,;f It, r \ .\ .tiii '�" i� 1' 'r. ,Ji ,1 f i4 \1 � ;/•�+ J� \�i , Jn- I�r-'-. ,�;. s!,1'��' f _ ,"t'�._' !yi}� i', (J,i��l: }'3 � J !�!c S/., 'Jn -. i�• '-/.•:�7fr J ] '!' J'r".r-'\ •ri41 ipp . Y�i/ i I� t�� 1f ��// (/I >�/J! }4'. ' � { �: 1�[ii `.7://"//,‘..,';' r hr .f It 1 •r!i rr ,!j ,� -'r ;!�1,.•,"_.r4 _/ _ ' r:' '‹r '1` '�" -. )'1 ! l fi , � is/ : i :�r.���% r•, ; '.165�1::� :.t i il { _ _ f a �: i'�` �?-; +•r11.,•'r� �-�:a - .� ,,�Ii _i?' ,i •., �• .r,Y/ �• i""T " 1/11'I';••'•rj( �`'':-:%r, /':i' fi., i'ri15�, J ,r ,+ �'.,.� 1 ����; //.�/!'/ Jr �_1, 'rl l,+ 111 %�j� .,� :Jl;: i,. �1;y ,ii. �:''?': \•'],`•.!.jl,;•'i; J7li, /'\, '�fif1}`�ti1may;(- l�f.�t ,Y _f�._'•,;1(y . `•-__ ; 's t. '.„`1'.r,. er; :I l :.!-1 6-' U,, .., . t c --- / l i r } ;,// S'-,'�«-- 'j �9)...ii ix: _. 'f..;'�'. .•..\�"•\� t � A ,1� :f !v_ mac' � �11 t _ - --._.r �,• �• r ~� �{'•, \ ,••�J rt ,; .! : t }J ` .,+ qy L•:: :r�J.�J 'f f.:`c;::- !�r.•�f'r`' � \•�7- ' J��/ / 1 .� f 'f��` \� / 'r',t•r.•. Ia✓' �f•A`i r � %J: ��.r�l ,1� 'r,'(•,.(: i6 �_. 1j; J :. `' •',i -"). t ,. ..I 1:J �"t'.:C ij' r .•'f'' ,. %.._•. /,il '1Vi'�SesL,-;\ '.• 1. ,`\_\.... 1,f r._,�, � �` , :.'i Cs'ti � :/t1''t:n /1'j:` ,1i? ` iri s` _-?4� ( ,lad, ;-_ �1�r�/ �•/� 1, `\?'� ti \t ;�y /7j r y'J;r�, e i r,r.,jti iilir 1. `�4 A i -t-\\ r�_%r � -,4 r ^1/fA,>,- r 1 y < ,,:( +f , t� -':. '-;--- ; Q lS;-\�_ � \;. I /1j. .•,` rr+`i{, !'ll 71' .11r,• ' j f'\ `?.,+•`,'\. - r.+ - t ) �� --'\"^4 . • ' •)ice :,:\l J'• 7 : 1(' 'k _ \ =rf OP � ' • ;e- -4�r , ,, ,r•,:•-s,, ;ei;,. .,elf (t -f:: sq. l ' .ter.:~ a t•,. _. - - >,••; - \ ./�/f,FictAts'> ,.e..,•.: "i't-1': ./P i :t >: V;l. / .%;",•"\---z- _.'� . SDI'i!; ,:l .ow^ r_,.. AL ,,, ,ii "�- -+:,�ti�. \' .... �1•.'+, -i/ " vSite. :,4•74 ' ` ��•' -- • :. tea. 1,,,-i i�• 'i!,41,•,' +1 ;:1,t `.- 'MY- :!'Eligle River.Basin ',aq:, , -.\ c.`=i?• i �,�` iliJit. 1 } 4 :,: ,2,900,square miles la,,.nr. ` ..1 rr c 1 1��F� A. -i' :if k .,r--%. i �```+-1_y,.t;Jfr-- '_�''�.\f�-' �'. • �•. tr; .• _ ,���. V''''' ' 'F / ills/ 4c5-k.•n.rfr•r'' it i��:x• :. .t - \ Il;"ti rM:`; !x'"r*',--- Q.,-- • !Y'q') • Explanation: Project Site Boundary DRAFT Drainage Basin Boundary 0 3000 ft. Alluvial Fans 1 1 1 �� Scale:1 in.=3000 ft. Contour interval=40 ft April 2009 P 109 028A C,�@~c c[7 B and B Property Figure 1 HEPWCRai-PAWLAK GEO1EaaICAL Project Site Location and Tributary Drainage Basins At e t ' " f r, ), r t' $��) a u # • -?r• 4, { i j ii a � �• �j� ra 'r'`*� i 3 1 t .,,;L.,.,;:t i$ Yj fir , l,[i a � C'4'• \ 1 'R .5� �1 � 1 . • . fpt v' ':„;':,.;'!„.... ••'; ,,,,,,,,„,, ,,,,it„:„. .......1, \ itzt . ! .1, x .,. .. „. _,,- i7 , ••.• •-•' • kA, • S,6, 1 ;';.1*, .`'; 1 - Gr t • t DR AFT , Moe and 8 pt sn tratle Pita•s%A 109 02$A t�vwr►� 1984 ` • M 6.1 ^�ti Laramie Mtn. \ 1984 M 5.5 C Wyoming 2 Basin — WY. NB. L. '''.\ U . e.Rocky c \Y V CO. Riddle die Aaameasln Walden 0 Mtn$ 1871 8 0 Fort OF h ❑ Grea c � Stearn t❑ Tr, Loveland❑Greeley G�"` 11882 N. ront a 1 . al ❑Fod Morgan ❑Senge*y CJ) Kre �J@� V9 Vi to M 32 II M 5.9 0 Rio Blanco r Boulder u Meeker * Protect fitik��<.,�iBiteVarGokMn `W/ Colorado ❑ S ni Eagle • p 0 Frisco Denver •)\ RI" ❑Parka` 1969 Glenwood (Explosion) O C❑nsr ❑lgowa Intermoun n S.Grand ❑AsPen R�`e ❑� ' Seismic Be ❑ Grenda9hala, P 0i 1. Plains o ' MothDelta 0 ❑ \Q58b ❑Colorado Sp. 0 Cimarron Ridge Gunnison Mongase0 M1 606 ❑ Sen❑de Ci20 ` 4) G� 7 Platea► 0 ( a) .. a67 Mtn 19 � 0. N Q6ga 955 ky VI keC C69b 1 VI r/1 'Heisenberg t 0 a69c Perms Springs N amosO ❑ ❑ UT. CO. Durango C169� a ❑fdnldad •r • • t r Explanation: Post-Glacial Faults: Historic Seismic Zones: Fault younger than about 15.000 years. Areas with historically high seismic activity. Larger Historic Earthquakes: M Local,surface wave or body wave magnituOR. , Earthquakes with meldmum Intensity greater than VI CVI Modified Mercalli intensity J or magnitude greater than M 5.0 from 1867 to present. 0 50 mi. •J • Nuclear Explosion: t t J Large underground nuclear explosion for natural gas References: reservoir enhancement. Widmann and Others(1998) Scale:1 in.=50 mi. U.S.Geological Survey Earthquake Catalogs 109 028A HP @C�"1 B and B Property I Figure 3^ FIEPnoR1H—PAMAK ceoimaticlrr. Geologically Young Faults and Larger Historic Earthquakes \��,[7_f `Q '1\l / � vim- \ �lo„.:‘,:i.:\ `� _ �J ' . �'i s``-.!. �- `r----4 �p7� ins cam.CG�7 . v yW 7 a \ eC c ��` .'L�� f. Res ;�Ts,.,,,,,,, ,I .,,,,::, —,i fro r, \ _ —pay.�f]/.76 :. .scnr.\\,,,, Li , .-, ._,. ._,,,. /, ,,,, ',,, -\',-' ,,'' .-% _,..jr, ' // M-- �, ,moo tom\s\-- 17 ,%` , , ;:. _--, :„, ,,-,;-- ' ,- .k 1.-\, -\c4 /,,.-,,\\ i:\ -----1) ,-/----c,e-...,!-14 -44 �v fn \-- .-,--\\\) i , l 1 :‘,,.,//„..(:).;7_6('-ii\_ rM1\ ,-, --',-._;--1; ,lk,>,,,,,,,v(7 -..2-r-7,6' \ '.2'1 7 Z.ik .N-- ' ‘ '`--- --, ) ti C� irlsue:: , ' ---z,\ ' \ \ •-',.9 '.',,,F.,;• ,:.jf 2 c, i — ,/;--- , , A \ LA , ----,___V--,:--i"- ''—'\\\‘ ..,,Z.74:, \ _ i _,_ \-.0,.,, ,... ) 7_ \\\\,,,,,,,,,\\` , 1 cky,„ / , \ fit¢ ' 'Q Explanation: Ei Post-Laramide Sediments IMII Pro-Laramide Mesozoic Sediments Contact DR l Post-Laramide Volcanic: -Paleozoic Sediments High-Angie Faults Post-Laramide Intrusive: -Pennsylvanian Evaporates • ' Thrust Faults 0 7 mi. Laramide Basin Sediments Precambrian Crystalline Rocks Synclines I t i INIScale:1:460,000 Laramide Intrusives Highways Modified from:Tweto(1979) 109 028A GgReCh B and B Property Figure 4 Regional Geology Map • • . ® p ''E 0 .10 ip 63 m o Mil Sawatch Range Anticline WOO ;an'�_.. Ili k0o. l d . iv,,,..R.r.....,_, .'.. .j... '.. :.:';rill: "_1i::::..":. ::5'7111'',-_::: ; tea C ro O i- > w r\\fig cc i Zr ��CI 'CO °, CO c ae_ � �od OS .E1 ,, a ki CO cto W 0 ; / N o to �� o W N U a oe4 ' J L RAfl. B and B Property Figure 5 109 028A �� oca Western Colorado Evaporite Region ';.C-7; Al'i vvt y , 11.1 .ta .r ... -J,, / , , ,, „:. , I,--do4a e ---„2 Z i '1-blse':- It A = S 'C i4- V:' i •,i. •,'":' L '', () ( ' 11 ; I $ a _ 1__-,_/' i 7//A 'ind•A/i'1)5' ' r 2 i i ei'a ,) I .b, - a.,- a p / 7 - •: ' a A -23. 2 ,-;-,43 g 2 i 5 i I c,.. z z-0 u, s i 1 I i 1 •rg : I _..,„. „...,„,,,,,,,, I . 2/ )i-,-,-,„,--,r..,-r;;":„,,,,-.,k,1 -r..-:, ',E.',-,..,-/---7,„:--fi-,,, - -,, ,.. ' r : - ,. -:-: -- _ --- ,i i..e•-...--,-:-›-----"r4 ___ - 1 1,-, ---, ----, ,,,---t, - ,, , d R, vA v,.1., u,, / e » a= 0 a riE.? / - -- 2 2 g IE - ti /',/ti • Pi /1 1 i,1 A"L•t\-. ,‘ "`•;4 70, I i `-.,; , T. O 0 .8"R 8 a: 7 ale p--. = -a - - -I V' .°\ ) ' ' \''•''' '- ---- - g 3 3 Li.„--LL)11q .. ,,,,Fc-7 1 ,,;,.__,C"-":o) ''.,'tr.',+-' • '0/4q V) -`-'- l'' ."--77--- ----- - - ---CZ1,11.k.,.-- • II 1: 4 - V) i-n, a t '' _,,,'7,1,\., g 8 ? u A ? Cro g i ^.- 1. O , ,0 e 1 . 5 a..., ,:.• Al 1-. 3 1 I - A a 411 EP .2 1 3 O s ji ib 3 - 4 g 1 s- ' .....,, ,,_ „,.... „..._ II 4 cl. 2 6 -----i-Nie,„--- 8 § 1 1 j 1 15 • u. 80 C "la lie'I if .0 • To a go I 4 2 = 4 --. e a 6 go k,x` • am 3 o (o (0 A,. *'' -c_ ' '''' c —II -- E 1 - C _ . B and B Property Figure 6 Project Area Geology Map 109 028A 14101110R048PMILAK G£01ECHNCAL DRAFT /-7-7• -7721',Wi .§1. 'g: ....,:,-.) '-/ : • i,..17/:c,:,/,-:,7*%,.,. . r.,,:, . /7 i .'11 '..7„,;:=-'-',„ ' , 41(/ ' -- ' l''...: . L_:.-_- / ''.. iry,":"" _Pt„1.„--,-- : . . .....____2z s ,„ ..1, .. : 4 07___,,„,_, ..,,..:, ,./.. ,„, ./).1 v I .,,.• 0 ,•)'".0,..,.7..,,,q, ( (A ,.0 .. : :. . t "-----// i•••' .-. 141..- ;,,-_,..,,y ;- • :: 2 ,. cl:i Ni6,‘ /: i i /1.1c, 111) * SS : '•- 0* - ' ff:- ' E i '''' ''' ' ---",*-'" fili\ I 1 . • .- - it ia)t. 4,d.--,:4 , ,. i • ::-.:,,_,fr-:- b / E-A-_ -_____,-,t4t4i L •:c.;::: ..::. . : .- • lAd a ,7/ 1 )(dr.;; .;,• .:. )-1:4;':;. :;•..-!..... • ----';', ' /7/4.-'-.;'''' 4' •'.*:..J.;•-• 1411 i ' PC::' '.:1:(i.:4\.‘ 7 A5...;,:!ii' _ A k triFf 4211) 142e , ''.'A;:,.1! : ' - _W 8 §1.1 6:.:.' i,..?;11 ,, ,..: _, — il / 0 .cr„) T,A 0 , . f.: 4-0- eco we . '',.g' Val Sg f.. :,,,,k1--:ale. ,7 0,,, ).--if \.•- , . :..,,,,.. ,,, . . -4,". ,‘' ,f- , iia II '..- 0 ::'.."'. ' ..' .. .• ' ' l'' 1 I°2 : : 2 g 1 / _• .. o-7, • , . ... 1 ! , g ag_„ g e 'c..-S'2 s-a* E u 2 a co.g -, / -... , • - 4. ro _ / 0 ‘ : si 11-3 0 c i c ii. 'rei.4- • /,! 9 - , Pla ( re p.m 0 6 fl_,V. -. ,,:. •- r• .. r . . ... 5 . • ' ec 0.°3 , -t?•:;,., - -- . ce. .. ' .„ . 1 1 41 u. iu • • ic? . •;p. 7 . , i r ! i 1..e: 0 c 2 q _„_,,,,,,,\ 49 •T.* -- --- .% tgi , -'..!' l'''',i7.e. 0 •-•:' -:'.:0-.. .. 1 N4..V.'•ZA,_ ti\i 0 q .:: 'i il E 1 1 --.,, „.__, f'-', T \1, 0. 8 -14,-• '-- 0, 1 ). r e 2, \ , -----.1 r1 ; :: 4( : 1 II ,.. _ .,_ - - . ..... „ , /f , i .- a . 2, i, . , K-..:,=' • ' ('' 11400, ..4, t e• 2 i . E I.. i ,t fi,r -71 i I k 8 .1 .. . • 1111111 k • i....1 • ,-, i1 ,.t.... ,:,0.: . „ ..;•.„ •. . ... . .. " . , ." ...,... ,-,.,., . •,, ._ - . _ :1 el I .Z.._, a.8, _,,. . ..... . a 5 f A ii - , ••••- ••••.a B and B Property Figure 7 ;Criti 109 028A G eCh Project Site Geology Map VIEPWORIVI—PNAVK MOTECHICPL • APPENDIX A DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOOD NOMENCLATURE AND CHARACTER Debris flows and floods are high sediment concentration flows(hyperconcentrated flows)with volumetric sediment concentrations(Cv)between about 20 and 63%. Because of their high sediment concentration hyperconcentrated flows behave differently that water floods with Cv less than about 20%. Hyperconcentrated flows in Colorado typically result from rapid runoff associated with short duration,unusually intense thunderstorms between June and September and some have resulted from rapid melting of an unusually heavy snowpack in the late spring. The high sediment concentrations are associated with small colluvial landslides in the steeper parts of the drainage basin and channel destabilization and scour. In addition to water,soil and rock debris,hyperconcentrated flows typically incorporate brush,logs and other organic debris. Drainage basins that produce hyperconcentrated flow have geologically young alluvial fans at their mouths. The drainage basin roughness coefficient(Milton number)and fan area to basin area ratio can be used to evaluate if a drainage basin will likely only produce debris floods on its fan or if it has the potential for both debris floods and debris flows on its fan. Basins with Milton numbers less than about 0.5 and fan areas that are less than about 15 percent of the basin area typically only produce debris floods on their fans. Basins with Milton numbers greater than about 0.5 and fan areas that are greater than about 15 percent of the basin area typically produce both debris floods and debris flows on their fans. After leaving the confined channels at the fan head,debris flows and floods spread on the alluvial fans and begin to deposit sediment and debris. It is uncommon that an individual debris flow or flood event will cover the entire fan surface but because of sediment deposition and fan surface alluviation it is not possible to predict the path an individual flow event will follow on the fan. Therefore,the entire fan surface should be considered in the potential flood way. Flow routing analysis and mitigation commonly used for water floods are not always applicable for routing analysis and mitigation of hyperconcentrated flows. DEBRIS FLOODS Debris floods typically have Cv between about 20 and 45%(sediment bulking factors of about 1.3 to 1.8). They flow at relatively high velocity and are capable of transporting boulders primarily as beadload. The coarse soil particles and rock debris carried in suspension settle when flow velocity decreases. Debris floods have fluid matrix viscosities and shear strength somewhat higher than water floods. They spread easily on relatively flat surfaces. DEBRIS FLOWS Debris flows typically have Cv between about 45 and 63%(sediment bulking factors of about 1.8 to 2.7). They flow at lower velocities than debris floods. They have high fluid matrix viscosity and shear strength and are capable of transporting boulders by rafting at the flow surface. Because of flow matrix viscosity and shear strength,debris flows form lobe-shaped deposits that stand above the deposition surface and they also form natural levies along the flow margins.The coarse soil particles and rock debris carried in the fluid matrix do not settle when the flow stops. Debris flows are capable of traveling relatively long distances on relatively flat slopes but as a general rule debris flow will typically not flow on slopes less than about 5%. DRAFT Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,Inc. 3e()tect'I 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs,Colorado 81601 Phone:Glenwood 5-79SS HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Fax:970-945-8454 email:hpgeo@hpgeotech.com April 30,-2009 Atira Attn: Lance Badger 56 Edwards Village Boulevard, Suite 225 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Job No. 109 028A Subject: Supplemental Subsurface Study,North Side Area, Proposed Eagle River Meadows Development, Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Lance: As requested, we have completed our supplemental study and exploratory borings for the area north of the Eagle River at the subject site. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical previously prepared a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Eagle River Meadows development, submitting our findings in a report dated March 30,2009 under the above Job Number. This report summarizes our findings for the north project area. Exploratory Borings 6, 7 and 8 were drilled at the north side area on April 13,2009 at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The borings were drilled with a track-mounted rig and 4 inch diameter auger equipment. Logs of the borings are provided on the • attached Figure 3. The subsoils encountered in Boring 6, located near the proposed north abutment of the Eagle River bridge, consisted of about 2 feet of organic topsoil underlain by relatively dense,silty sandy gravel and cobbles and boulders that extended down to the drilled depth of 8 feet where drilling refusal occurred. The subsoils encountered in Borings 7 and 8, located in the proposed development area in the north side of the property,below about 2 to 3 feet of topsoil, consisted of medium dense, silty clayey sand with shale fragments to cobble size underlain by medium stiff to stiff; sandy clay and silt. With depth, Boring 7 encountered highly weathered to hard claystone/siltstone of the Eagle Valley Formation, and Boring 8 encountered relatively dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on samples of the silty clayey sand soils, provided on Figure 7,indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. Free water was encountered in Borings 7 and 8 at depths of about 13 and 4 feet, and no free water was encountered in Boring 6. Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 o Silverthorne 970-468-1989 Atira April 30,2009 Page 2 The subsurface conditions encountered in Borings 6 through 8 are similar to those assumed for our preliminary geotechnical report dated March 30, 2009 and recommendations from that report are considered applicable to the north side area. We have updated the attachments from our previous report and included them as attachments with this report. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH—PAWLAISWIT41 jy��.HNICAL, INC. RE0 let w = s : David A. Young, P . 32-216 45.w Rev. by. SLP rf�cSlS1O WA IO0 ;111% DAYlksw attachments Figure 1, Location of Exploratory Borings Figures 2 and 3,Logs of Exploratory Borings Figure 4, Legend of Exploratory Boring Logs Figure 5,Notes of Exploratory Boring Logs Figures 6— 10, Swell-Consolidation Test Results Figure 11, Gradation Test Results Table 1, Summary of Laboratory Test Results Job No. 109 028A Ci-egtech \ -.=. ; ,.--,----,,:, .:::,.,,,, jp , iw.z.-- i §4 ori ,0 +K ..8 \.,0, : 8 c zi, , f ,,,,,_ ,.., ,,),„ --v,:=,,--,-.!: .-, '- ' t?----7 4 c. \ i rd._ ,.....„ v /- :. c � � �i�L, -- t e dfi ,'.,:-,:r;_ , / ,,/,/_.'‘.y. � _,/ f'2• , rr 5 7 /1:. . ;,.-, .w-- rA,7.4‘,. 0 )/ Y .-‘',.4 L.. v., 1, ' •@ oeCO / v � as i p am Ea$ e hviv7� u'fa eif /445' .17i...lii: g . 11 \II, li Ir- .... 1 in • 0 iJ c I ' • r A n • '`lr�,r - > +� g .. fJ ct %. "CV 03 re 21 I,u4( t� �N - a t it o m cd 12 , • . \---- :di is `\. fir,:... p 4 :, , . 'L�'lra I . `1 :':\ r `• ` �\ D.CO (� CQ7 6 11, /1 a \\/ .\1 !.,,,Ii, �3 � uJ VA\\,,, )' �,/ \ �' 07 1 i .k164 :. ,' 1 if,' 9 2 § Sj ti w 3 eb slit p'-' I 22 • ° fitifit ' lilt" . _c?...„...,, .. 1 r. . . c2 � a /___ : . 9 3 _ FY:: ,.D Ililf/1 a it /*P.,. .I. 8 5 e i _ _. _..,,, ___11 1 8 7. ...,1, J 4,4 - 149 028A G@'� itech Eagle River Meadows Property Figure 1 HEPWGRM-PAW.AR 0E07E4404iCAL Location of Exploratory Borings and Project Site Geology Map BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 BORING 5 ELEV.=7130' ELEV.=7135' ELEV.=7143' ELEV.=7142' ELEV.=7144' 0 /12 28/6/12 ,... 6/12,30/5 WC127.3 0 33/12 W. 52/12 WC 264.0 31/12 ' -200=18 WC=16.1 18/12 '``- Pt=NP i 12 _ 21/12 — .■ DD=109 . W =6.6 y_, 50/5 — -200=33 I►.� r. i..,2 DD=120 7,11 W WC=9.5 ■ 12 34 -200=27 — 0., +4=40 -- 10 ■ 4/6,12/4 g ■ 6/i 2 i 16/12 -200=11 10 _A..— WC=30.0 ,WC=14.7 26/12 - 8 _ ' DD=95 ' DD=116 — Fp —0,12 90/12r-i 9/12 -200=66 L. — / ■ WC=76.5 .'.� 33/12 — r00 D0=51 8,12,.4 4 .. _._ -200=49 _ 0 - 20 7/12 7/12 10112 20 )11 C:J _ 00-42 ■ 8/12 0 _ _ WC=55.2 °;:00 DD=64 _',,z -- - 30 11 0■ 9/12 GI - :• 6112 30 pr __,:r. 15/12 V — ■ WC=26.4 Z $— OP f — di '�; 40 40 a o t•' .�,4, t;,* P y a. -_ / A ., - �� — 500 12/12 50 - 60 0 60 Pk i A Boring 2 continued —...,. )14 - 70 ® i''� _70 — !: :4 .— 4,0 :ee, 80 Bottom Depth of Boring 2 at 94' 80 Note:Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 4 with boring notes on Figure 5. I-1 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 109 028A@� SOUTH SIDE AREA Figure 2 HEPwORn+PAwL.AKC GEO7ECHNICAL • BORING 6 BORING 7 BORING 8 ELEV.= 7134' ELEV.=7136' ELEV.=7133' 0 0 .g — k 50/4 28/12 1 0 4/12 - -� T�- ,• ••. WC=7.6 - _ - — p. -200= — 101.-T ▪ •. 7/6,10/1 7/12 10 • WC=9.1 —� . WC=22.0 — 1 ▪ DD=112 DD=101 — . 7/12 — ▪ 32/12 p WC=21.9 — -.7.-.' DD=114 — — :•F• ' -200=76 ~- 20 •• .•t 14/12 6/12 20 — —s.:4 Li — a 15/12 u_ Q. [a 30 30 0 40 , 40 —1 50 0 50 — 60 Note:Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 4 with boring notes on Figure 5. H LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 109 028A ( � NORTH SIDE AREA Figure 3 Hepworth—Pawta Osotechnical LEGEND: I Asphalt;about 4 inches thick encountered only at Boring 2. ® Fill; man-placed variable material ranging from silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles to occasionally sandy silty clay with scattered gravel and cobbles, loose to medium dense,slightly moist to moist, brown and dark brown, mixed with some topsoil. ® Topsoil;organic silty clay to clayey silty sand,medium stiff, moist,dark brown to black. 2 Peat;highly organic silt and sand,medium stiff,very moist to wet,black. Clay and Silt(CL-ML);sandy with scattered gravel,stiff in Borings 4 and 7 to medium stiff in Boring 8, moist in L Boring 4 to wet in Borings 7 and 8, brown to red-brown. MSand (SM-SC); silty to very silty,typically clayey,with highly organic Peat zones or layers,scattered gravel and cobbles, loose to medium dense,moist to wet, mixed brown and grey-brown. ASand and Silt(SM-ML);stratified and interlaid,occasionally clayey,with scattered gravel and small cobbles, medium dense/stiff,very moist,grey-brown. aGravel and Cobbles(GM);with boulders,sandy,silty to slightly silty, dense, moist,light brown,rocks are primarily subrounded to rounded. —7 Siltstone/Claystone; medium hard to hard, moist,grey to brown,occasionally gypsiferous. Eagle Valley Evaporite. 2 Highly Weathered Claystone/Siltstone; medium hard, red-brown. Eagle Valley Formation. -'' Claystone/Siltstone;hard, red-brown. Eagle Valley Formation. 2 PRelatively undisturbed drive sample;2-inch I.D.California liner sample. 111 Drive sample; standard penetration test(SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample,ASTM D-1586. 5/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 5 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. 008 Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken. Fluctuations in free water level may occur with time. -p Depth at which boring had caved immediately following drilling or when checked 1 day later. ter- Practical drilling refusal.Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. - ' ,, Indicates slotted PVC pipe installed in boring to depth shown. L 109 028A G~ritech LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Figure 4 Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnicol • NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on March 11, 12, 19 and April 13,2009 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level.The logs of the exploratory borings were drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the togs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. No free water was encountered in Borings 3 and 6. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC=Water Content(%) DD = Dry Density(pcf) +4= Percent retained on the No.4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No.200 sieve LL= Liquid Limit(%) PI = Plasticity Index(%) NP= Non-plastic • 109 028A Gatech NOTES OF EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Figure 5 Hepworth—Pawtak Geotechnfcol Moisture Content= 30.0 percent Dry Density= 95 pcf Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand From: Boring 2 at 10 Feet 1 0 1 No movement a pon wetting ,412 2 • E o U 3 4 • • • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPUED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A Cye� h SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6 HEPWOR HeAWLAK GEORECHnICAL Moisture Content= 55.2 percent Dry Density= 64 pcf Sample of: Silt and Sand (Peat) From: Boring 2 at 25 Feet 0 2 Compression ---upon 4 - - _ wetting • .N - 6 ,a2 CL E 0 0 8 — 10 •12 14 _ 16 . • - 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf M 109 028A ��Q h SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 7 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Moisture Content= 14.7 percent Dry Density= 116 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay and Silt From: Boring 4 at 10 Feet 1 p 0 0 N Nopon movement 2 wetting 3 4 5 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPUED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A ��''� SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8 HCPWORTFMPAWLAK GEOTKCHNICAL • Moisture Content= 66.6 percent Dry Density= 42 pcf Sample of: Silt and Sand (Peat) From: Boring 4 at 20 Feet 1 0 1 Compression — - ' upon 2 wetting 0 .) 3 w • 0 4 5 6 7 • 8 , 9 10 • 11 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A ., ,,�, C3V6®Ch SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 9 H RTH-PAWRAKGEaT cHNIcwi, • Moisture Content = 9.1 percent Dry Density= 112 pcf Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel From: Boring 7 at 9 Feet * 0 No movement 0 ----upon wetting 0. E 0 U 2 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf Moisture Content = 22.0 percent Dry Density= 101 pcf Sample of: Sitly Clayey Sand From: Boring 8 at 9 Feet 0 1 No movement --upon * 2 wetting c 0 .y UJ 2 a 3 0 U 4 • • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 10 Hepworth—Powfok Geotechnkd • I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIE5 I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS HR 4511N.175 MIN.60MINi9MIN.4 MIN.1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/41 1/2" 35"6" 8" 10 ..a.r.M. M—r.... 00 are. ...rA..a.s.r.r.r. r— .—. . AM am w.OIIIIIIM—.- -._— _- 11•MNIMM— CU 20 ate._= a�A.."...aaa...r.ate.MINNIIMEN Mr MOM MIONNI b•Mil MM..NM_� 90 a --MINNImo_as—..� Z 30 .. M MIIII 70 Z CU ... eo w ��— rr-� m Si -- LU — MNIIIM 00 M. ric An �� a_.s 4 CC MINE _ I M� �.� O.. 70 r.� a .—=�...�.......M...M 30 • r.....r._— I.M,ANI. --- ,..IIIIIMINIMMIMMIIIM NIP,AM.! Mil •II i M IN Mil Mill MI 11... 80 MOM.r_— rr! ... 20 annn.l min—. .r. moon r— _— . -4. wo i-.__ —.�—..ram....... 90. �._i�—a ..ram 10 ..M=.....r— —MI MMM -- 100'r--_— 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 074 .150 200 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT FINE 1 MEDIUM SAND GRAIUM I COARSE , FINE COARSVEL E GRAVEL 40 % SAND 49 % SILT AND CLAY 11 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Slightly Sitly Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 5 at 7 Feet 22qq��, HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME 45 al.IS MIN.60MIN 9MIN.4DMINS MIN. #200 #100 #50 U.S. #ONE#i6RD SE#IBS #4 3/sC�3/4 1 112'AR SQUARE�3NINGS6" SI.M= MM., NMI AM MINIMINIIIMINNIM 100 90 ...... .....r_— ....—.ate 50 .aaaa.a_.I =...r err""..i. ��_ 70 Z a�a�-, io��`+riI Q..r..MUMS go ONNNIM M-..a..Mlaa...N.M�..s: 50 MINM 50 .. � ..r rarmo r.rar a•i-- LU LU ... ..�__ cc so = =--= �- 4o U w C —•------ ---- w d ter.......r.� r-I .MAIN .rr� ---- __.> --..---- -- 30 MEMI=li CI- - — 80 ^EN.... 20 immon -r- .......s_..wr .._..nii_ram.- 90 ��� ..� 10 100 r..a....,.... MINMINIMMC-C 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.519.0 37.5 76.2 12152 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CIAYTO SILT FSIE I SAND DRIVEL MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 47 % SAND 29 % SILT AND CLAY 24 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 7 at 4 Feet 109 028A ~( �@C�'1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 11 Hepworth—Pawlak Geotechnical W ' _ N •-, CC a 3 `G 'C 'ti n `d 'b ' "" RI y W R Cd 0.0 cc eh tg >1 en >1 g W 0 "d U W ua 0en riD r73 U tib V] in v] at V] 0 W ca G0 w w ? z N Oz cc▪ Z a w n z o in M U U N z J p U X o z aLLJ U CC :I et. - Z H ix = w m r U F c LLJ I-- tY Q 0 X 1/40 N N OW O C C7 < Y ce Q `-1 0 0 V. Q Z Q J Iii ? '�' MON N VO - - N VD GD Cl. Q LL. a 47 $ N t\ 2 O a } CC O 0 • 2 z a ON0\ a. 2 Z VI N Lu = O = vt a 0 d K J ID 1.0 O N g al Mr J QO per\ I j Cam\ N CI VZ. N .~-i � - z > 0 J le F --i 0 N O vO t� \O en tr) vO .--i .0 0) ON � '— O\ l�000 - M N N . • . I \0 N 1-1 Nz x a \ O tr) �� O O N NN et G\ O\w N en ,_ N el- .-IF 0 a U 0 J w J 0. t7 z 0 .O --i N M V1 l� 00 m • Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,Inc. 1-1 r-. 5020 County Road 154 GeOltedh Glenwood Springs,Colorado 81601 Phone:970-945-7988 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Fae:970-945.8454 email:hpgeo@hpgeotech.com April 30,2009 #3 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. Atira Attn: Lance Badger 56 Edwards Village Boulevard, Suite 225 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Job No. 109 028A Subject: Supplemental Subsurface Study,North Side Area,Proposed Eagle River Meadows Development, Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Lance: As requested, we have completed our supplemental study and exploratory borings for the area north of the Eagle River at the subject site. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical previously prepared a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Eagle River Meadows development, submitting our findings in a report dated March 30, 2009 under the above Job Number. This report summarizes our findings for the north project area. Exploratory Borings 6,7 and 8 were drilled at the north side area on April 13, 2009 at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The borings were drilled with a track-mounted rig and 4 inch diameter auger equipment. Logs of the borings are provided on the attached Figure 3. The subsoils encountered in Boring 6, located near the proposed north abutment of the Eagle River bridge, consisted of about 2 feet of organic topsoil underlain by relatively dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles and boulders that extended down to the drilled depth of 8 feet where drilling refusal occurred. The subsoils encountered in Borings 7 and 8,located in the proposed development area in the north side of the property,below about 2 to 3 feet of topsoil, consisted of medium dense, silty clayey sand with shale fragments to cobble size underlain by medium stiff to stiff, sandy clay and silt. With depth,Boring 7 encountered highly weathered to hard claystone/siltstone of the Eagle Valley Formation, and Boring 8 encountered relatively dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on samples of the silty clayey sand soils,provided on Figure 7, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. Free water was encountered in Borings 7 and 8 at depths of about 13 and 4 feet, and no free water was encountered in Boring 6. Parker 303-841-7119 ® Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 o Silverthorne 970-468-1989 Atira April 30,2009 Page 2 The subsurface conditions encountered in Borings 6 through 8 are similar to those assumed for our preliminary geotechnical report dated March 30, 2009 and recommendations from that report are considered applicable to the north side area. We have updated the attachments from our previous report and included them as attachments with this report. If you have any questions or need further assistance,please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH—PAWLAI WI $ HNICA.L, INC. N0,r0121;C;�s°diem • edV., David A.Young,Pl.:3 , 3 -216 IS ta: S. O % S"''D9147.1 Rev. b : SLP 4�*.0,S'� �• ��! Y iii-VONAL`t-rb DAY/ksw attachments Figure 1, Location of Exploratory Borings Figures 2 and 3, Logs of Exploratory Borings Figure 4, Legend of Exploratory Boring Logs Figure 5,Notes of Exploratory Boring Logs Figures 6— 10, Swell-Consolidation Test Results Figure 11, Gradation Test Results Table 1, Summary of Laboratory Test Results Job No. 109 028A c. Otech -: 1 `\ i/ r J y' W- oiriv, 1 ', ,-.1 --- "a--.-'''' ,;,/,'A ''',/1 ,... §]57 2 ''-..- ----.--- .i,---:=--,;/ /4-1(187 ;----41. fr;'55r-I. ' 4 hk:-:.'400Filiiin/ ./ . / '' '''' ,Y of 4i- 'tzi :1,t,i-_-,--_i_-_*:-_--.:-! ' ) i k,%. " L:_x-- ,-c: --__-1 • 2. /c ss „„,.. iiii 0(- ,r'[.' ' /' s i n Yf.", ' /5410,‘gia341gelP,174104 1 1 ) CD co) '/i'l ' -: /tf'',.rr, 74/1; i237---r. ..-- ' /1P.4(1-10 A . ,,„ / 1B A t / i\-\. , •..../ ... CC 03 ,,,\\ 11,_ 3 2 Uli !:lh / f " co . lop • EI '"' a fop av5 'U�• , i as ./ � CO I ; i :re- P , • � .5 ,L.H'' . ,, kl ___-"L_ ra t,,,.." (gg : f , ,, i fcg. °' co I c o 1 _ , O. • _ �:W:, � to W 2 l'el:.71 1- cla g g q i '-.. s . . 0 ols: 0.4 ''''''''','\ '''t::.,,I,. ."':'\'1, cb e k. ,I. [,\1 _ri. i,, €-5LL .: VP\'''`it-_,Ir. i1 1�d CCIS � J// ��j / -8 : 4 /IP),\ , .J,_,Iiit 1 \, ` }i i C W Iei, N 14, ))44, Cri i I I r 1 Pr • 26101 . :7 I - w a .,,,„ ,,ii:::tof.k.111::,':,:,„:,- :I 1.0c2.,.,.,.,.,. 6/171 ';'-', ; ;I if 4 cliiir--' . 9 _ 9 a - e , ,_ I a— — [1 . = .. . 8 109 028A 'ech Eagle River Meadows Property Figure 1 HEPWORTH—PAU GEM,-CH MM& Location of Exploratory Borings and Project Site Geology Map BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 BORING 5 ELEV.=7130' ELEV.=7135' ELEV.=7143' ELEV.=7142' ELEV.=7144' - 0 /12 ,... }}}}...}}}}�pp 6/12,30/5 28/12 0 33/12 ■ 52/12 F WC 264.0 31/12 200 18 - - WC=16.i 18/12 PE=NP . i 12 21/12 - ■ DD=109 ■ 100/2 ��■ �=6.6 y 50l5 - • -200=33 • ', H DD=120 1 11 k* WC=9.5 ,■ 12 34 -200=27 - 0 +4=40 - - 10 ■ 4/6,12/4 ■ 6/12 ■ 16/12 � -200=11 10 — WC=30.0 WC=14.7 26/12 — 8 -9- - S DD=95 DD=116 — Fol 1 -p,i�3. � 90/12� �--� 4 9/12 -200=66 _ -- ■ WC=76.5 • 33/12 - r OW DD=51 8,12, �11'' - 7/12 a 7/12-200=49 = 10/12 20 20PrA r('- we=ss.s0 - PIF DD=42 04 ■ 8/12 0 0 0 - a WC=55.2 DD=64 -- 30 A. 9/12 a C:':J ° 6/12 30 t i F0 15/12 AO _ _ WC=26.4 W - s . DD=96 ._ "- 40 Tol40 _ , .c p 0 0 a�i- d 0 _ - 50 0 12/12 00....- V°1-41' 50 0 r 0 t 1 _ - 60 60 _ P 04 1 _ el Boring 2 continued ! 70 r 0 /` 70 — � — !•` ..., — ell .,,,,, _ 80 Mf Bottom Depth of Boring 2 at 94' 80 Note:Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 4 with boring notes on Figure 5. I-I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 109 028A �� SOUTH SIDE AREA Figure 2 HEFWORSWPAW WC GEOYECHNICAL • BORING 6 BORING 7 BORING 8 ELEV.= 7134' ELEV.=7136' ELEV.=7133' - ° go. - i50/4 :;: 28/12 1 0 4/12 =--> T WC=7.6 — +4= 200=IT p7„„-/60.1".91.1 7/12 1a—� ' WC=22.0 1 DD=112 /12 = 32/12 7/12 — 0 WC=21.9 — DD=114 — ''�' -200=76 — - 20 0 14/12 6/12 20 — 15/12 1 — "' ' m — e — N 30 / 30 0 / — 40 ,1 40 — 0 _ — e — 50 i, 50 — — — w — Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 4 with boring notes on Figure 5. I—I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 109 028A NORTH SIDE AREA Figure 3 Iiepworth—Pawta c Geotechnical LEGEND: Asphalt;about 4 inches thick encountered only at Boring 2. I ® Fill;man-placed variable material ranging from silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles to occasionally sandy silty clay with scattered gravel and cobbles,loose to medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown and dark brown, mixed with some topsoil. ® Topsoil;organic silty clay to clayey silty sand, medium stiff, moist,dark brown to black. Peat; highly organic silt and sand,medium stiff,very moist to wet,black. 0 ;' Clay and Silt(CL-ML);sandy with scattered gravel,stiff in Borings 4 and 7 to medium stiff in Boring 8,moist in GBoring 4 to wet in Borings 7 and 8,brown to red-brown. Sand(SM-SC); silty to very silty,typically clayey,with highly organic Peat zones or layers, scattered gravel and cobbles,loose to medium dense,moist to wet,mixed brown and grey-brown. 0 Sand and Silt(SM-ML);stratified and interlaid,occasionally clayey,with scattered gravel and small cobbles, medium dense/stiff,very moist, grey-brown. Gravel and Cobbles(GM);with boulders,sandy,silty to slightly silty, dense, moist,light brown,rocks are primarily subrounded to rounded. Siltstone/Claystone; medium hard to hard, moist,grey to brown,occasionally gypsiferous. Eagle Valley Evaporite. 7 Highly Weathered Claystone/Siltstone;medium hard, red-brown.Eagle Valley Formation. "-7 Claystone/Siltstone;hard, red-brown. Eagle Valley Formation. 1:1 L Relatively undisturbed drive sample;2-inch I.D.California liner sample. IIDrive sample;standard penetration test(SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample,ASTM D-1586. 5I12 Drive sample blow count;indicates that 5 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. q8 Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken. Fluctuations in free water level may occur with time. -' Depth at which boring had caved immediately following drilling or when checked 1 day later. TPractical drilling refusal.Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. Indicates slotted PVC pipe installed in boring to depth shown. 109 028A �1-!� LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Figure 4 Hepworth-Pawlak GeotechnIcal • NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on March 11, 12, 19 and April 13,2009 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level.The logs of the exploratory borings were drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. No free water was encountered in Borings 3 and 6. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC =Water Content(%) DD = Dry Density(pcf) +4= Percent retained on the No.4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No.200 sieve LL= Liquid Limit(%) PI = Plasticity Index(%) NP= Non-plastic 109 028A eistech NOTES OF EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Figure 5 Hepworth—Pawldc Geotechnical Moisture Content = 30.0 percent Dry Density= 95 pcf Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand From: Boring 2 at 10 Feet 1 - 0 1 _ No movement o upon a 2 wetting o. E U • 3 4 • • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf li" 109 028A ��Q h SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6 HEPWOIm+PAWL.AK GE07ECHNICAL Moisture Content= 55.2 percent Dry Density= 64 pcf Sample of: Silt and Sand (Peat) From: Boring 2 at 25 Feet 0 2 Compression --upon wetting o • 03 6 0 U 8 10 • 12 - 14 16 • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A Girigtech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 7 HEPWOR1H-PAwLAX GEOTECHNICAL Moisture Content= 14.7 percent Dry Density= 116 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay and Silt From: Boring 4 at 10 Feet 1 0 1 JN0mement 2 wetting Q. U 3 4 5 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPUED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A Gmech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8 HIEPWORITFPAWLAKG6oT cH LCAL • Moisture Content= 66.6 percent Dry Density= 42 pcf Sample of: Silt and Sand (Peat) From: Boring 4 at 20 Feet 1 0 1 Compression upon 2 wetting 22 3 a • 0 4 5 6 7 • 9 10 11 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf • 109 028A a h SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 9 HEPWORTh-PAWLAK GEO7ECHMCAL. Moisture Content = 9.1 percent Dry Density= 112 pcf Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel From: Boring 7 at 9 Feet is 0 No movement g —'~—upon wetting 2 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf Moisture Content = 22.0 percent Dry Density= 101 pcf Sample of: Sitly Clayey Sand From: Boring 8 at 9 Feet 0 1 No movement --upon 2 wetting N $ 3 Ji U 4 • • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 109 028A G$H ICh SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 10 Hepworth—Powlok Geotechncol h HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS [ TIME READINGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS o45 v11N.All IN.OMINi9MIN.4 MIN.1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8° 3/4" 1 1/2' 3" 5'6' 8" i-MIME __MM� limm�_M� 100 10, r_� .i—e-.r-ram-- - elm— w__----- r....iMIN=- ...,. ..--- so O ..1. .I._ INMN IMrlrw rt�----- 0 Z 30—....-�— ..�.,��.=.�w.:�c..= 70 Z IMMINIMININIMI Mr MI IIMN .1 M CO I'AN MI111. NI MINI IM MIIIIIII NO IMMI �_ .w.r— .- ,w...,.._ ......... 50 Z U 11 -i- ���AM --r— V cc 60 __ MM...M...._'-- 40 CC Ill �� 10i1.I __--i----- w CL .w _ _-i_- A .1.in 6Q mMMENN.NNINIMI im .....-..M.. 20 —i— --- rmm,.r.i_------i..l —i----- —rw.w�— ---�—MI iNNON —- rw —rr-r-IMom --- 100 am Man 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.16 2.3 4.76 9.512.5 19.0 37.5 762 152 203 127 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAM SILT 5 SAND 0 4EL I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE COARSE COVES GRAVEL 40 % SAND 49 % SILT AND CLAY 11 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Slightly Sitly Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 5 at 7 Feet 2pqq gy�pp,, HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME d5 WN.15 MIN.OMIN 9MIN.4DINGS MIN.MIN. #I00 #100 #0 S #30 STANDAR#16SE#8S CLEAR" 1 1 SQUARE OPENINGS"6' 8' 0 ...MINI MINIM=MOMMar--Mil 100 � .11•1- -..f...il ate...M..MMI 2 M MN di MN 0 r_i- i��._—.r_ 60 —i— —i. ,MEN r_-r_ Z 3a .n"r""r— ----- 70 ? Q —i- -OWMI.,i ems.-- —�— �_—i.�■—EMS MI .M. d --= -_ir_-WI Z 5o in_w.r�_i--��:� 5o Z .���_-_ram w Lll — — s.. ----- 0 —..... — - 0= !!I =ili— —___-- _i w d —rrrrrr— r - —mI —i—� 0_ 70 —i_r— --ram _i 30 80 —�.—milmin Nam —�—=— 20 .�..NIN m �-= mew.■...- —ir__wr- 90 MIME. 10 Mill— _i..,i---- -i- --- -i- --- —i— -.rr.-r-.ram_I NI .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.512.519.0 37.5 76.2 12r2 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY70 SILTI SAND FEE I MEDIUM I COARSE FiNe ORAyIa COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 47 % SAND 29 % SILT AND CLAY 24 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 7 at 4 Feet 109 028A (,�Q~ ["'� GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 11 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical \ _ _ 0 Zw t ' q q ? k ■ ,5o en c k t § 27 k w § § § * ® › cn R , 0v kp cdƒ k § § ' 2 k > § / % o 0 2 d k 03 Cl) 2 d k J Cl) 2 k 7 3 tJ 2 6 it § E e § 0- § ; 20 nB - 7 x _ < ell 7 §k u Ce ® z VI cr = § % I- CC ` 0 F ® w < LLI I— § CC l 25e2et 5 § mm a* N '0 N 00 ¥q gN< < u_ tee a 1 - QQ. � � >- C « CC Q. 2 • = yin % % o = § « ix ) k % \ § k al In G 7 ƒ 0 q - k - 0 §\ § — o « q # o � ts g m q « _ 0 01 §( § Z / o d g d / m N w q ? N A z E 2 © © ƒ q M N * CT ON 2 2 j M m q § k § — q m a . q C- co #4 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. lierracon Consulting Engineers&Scientists Terracon Consultants,Inc. April 8, 2009 10625 West 1-70 Frontage Road North,Suite 3 Wheat Ridge,Colorado 80033 Phone 303.423.3300 Mr. James Ryan Fax 303.423.3353 BWAB Reef Gravel Pit, LLC www.terracon.com 475 17th Street, Suite 1390 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-7444 Re: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Site Investigation Report, and Proposed Closure Summary B&B Excavating Property 33415 Highway 6 Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado 81632 Dear Mr. Ryan: The B & B Excavating property is located at 33415 U.S. Highway 6 in Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado and is an approximate 104-acre tract of land occupied with an aggregate mining operation, a concrete batch plant and associated aggregate bins, four fuel dispensers, two above ground fuel storage tanks (ASTs), and a natural wetland. Terracon completed a Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA Project No. 25087053) for the Site on July 18, 2008 which included sampling eight existing groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate groundwater petroleum impact. The monitoring well sampling was performed on June 17, 2008. A cursory summary of the Phase I ESA findings is provided below. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this summary. • The site is bound to the north by train tracks and undeveloped land, followed by Interstate 70. The site is bound to the south by Highway 6 and a landscaping company. The site is bound to the east by the continuation of the gravel mine, and is bound to the west by undeveloped land and Lake Creek, followed by residences. • The presence of the ASTs, fuel dispensers, drums and totes containing petroleum products, oil/water separators, and stained soil on the site are RECs to the site. • Based on review of the historical information, the site was undeveloped from at least 1960 until between 1961 and 1979 when the site mining, grading, and Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965 More Than 95 Offices Nationwide BWAB Reef Gravel Pit,LLC lrerracan Summary Conwking Engfiaoa&SciamIsts April 8,2009 vehicle maintenance activities began. The previous consultant report conducted on the site and the historical interviews identified potential and actual petroleum product releases have occurred on the site. A review of owner-provided documentation indicated that remediation of sub-surface spills has not occurred by the issuance date of this report. The documented and potential releases of petroleum products on the site present RECs. • The environmental regulatory database review identified two listings within the ASTM E 1527-05 specified search distances. The site was identified as a UST, FINDS, AST, and RCRA-NLR facility. The UST and AST listings present RECs to the site. • A previous Phase I/Phase II environmental report was provided by the client to review. The report detailed the site conditions in 2004, as well as described the installation of the monitoring wells that are present on the site. The findings of the report outlined several RECs associated with the site that remain as RECs to the site. • At the direction of the client, Terracon collected groundwater samples from the accessible on-site groundwater wells and the samples were analyzed for VOCs and TPH. Benzene was not detected above the laboratory reporting limit in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-5, MW-6, MW-9, MW-10 and MW-12. Benzene was detected in monitoring wells MW-4 (3.3 micrograms per liter (µg/L)) and MW-11 (6.9 µg/L), the latter of which exceeds the benzene Colorado Groundwater Standard (CGS) of 5.0 µg/L. Toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and MTBE were not detected at concentrations that exceeded their respective CGSs. No carbon chain compounds were detected above the laboratory reporting limit in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-9, and MW-10. TVPH, TPH-diesel range, and TPH-oil range were detected in monitoring well MW-11 at concentrations of 1,800 mg/L, 1,400 mg/L, and 60 mg/L, respectively. TPH- diesel range and TPH-oil range were detected in monitoring well MW-12 at concentrations of 120 mg/L and 86 mg/L, respectively. The State of Colorado has not promulgated a numeric groundwater standard for TVPH. The presence of elevated TVPH in groundwater on site indicates that petroleum compounds remain in the subsurface. The areas on the site that Terracon assessed were based on the research performed during Terracon's Phase I and on previous reports prepared by other consultants. Based on the Phase I assessment and per standard industry procedure, Terracon recommended additional subsurface investigation of the following five site locations: 2 BWAB Reef Gravel Pit,LLC lr2riacon Summary ConsuMngSeglnaon&Scientists April 8,2009 • The light truck repair area • Waste oil disposal area • Historic asphalt wash-out area • Fuel AST and dispenser islands area • Historic fueling area#2 Terracon reviewed previous reports prepared by others for the site that identified petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater. One of the documents Terracon reviewed was a December 2007 report submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) prepared by Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) on behalf of B&B Excavation summarizing site characterization activities consisting of test pits and sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells. The test pits and monitoring wells were located near a former asphalt washout area where diesel fuel was reportedly used to clean the beds of asphalt hauling trucks. The site characterization identified areas of petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the former truck washout area. The WEI report also contained Corrective Action Plan (CAP) submitted on the behalf of B & B Excavating which included removal and disposal of petroleum-impacted soil, free product recovery and disposal, followed by monitored natural attenuation and groundwater sampling. The intent of Terracon's Site Investigation (SI)was to further characterize the extent of the documented petroleum impact to the shallow soil and groundwater from the asphalt washout operations. Terracon also investigated potential petroleum impact to soil and groundwater at the historic and existing fueling areas. Historic Asphalt Washout and Truck Parking Area • Eight borings were advanced to assess potential petroleum soil and groundwater impact(borings B4, B5, 88, B11, B12, B13, B14, and B15). • Depths to groundwater measurements ranged from 5.92 feet(boring B13) to 14.1 feet bgs (boring B8). • Soils encountered consisted of interbedded clay, sand, and gravels. • Bedrock was not encountered in the SI borings. • Indications of suspected petroleum impact (i.e. gray stained soil andfor petroleum odor) were observed in boring B8 (from 12 to 27 feet bgs), borings B13 and B14 (6 to 6.5 feet bgs), and in boring B15 (two intervals 6.5 to 7 feet bgs and 10 to 11 feet bgs). 3 BWAB Reef Gravel Pit,LLC lierracan Summary Consulting rtsginocts&k April 8,2009 • Laboratory analyses of soil samples detected TPH concentration exceeding the Colorado soil TPH cleanup guideline 500 mg/kg in soil samples B8-10 and B15- 10. • PAH analyses of soil samples from borings B8-10 and B15-10 did not detect soil PAH concentrations above regulatory guidelines. • Laboratory analyses for BTEX and MTBE detected benzene concentrations exceeding the CGS in groundwater samples B8 and B13. MTBE was detected exceeding the CGS in groundwater sample B8. • PAH analyses of groundwater sample B8 detected four PAH compounds above their respective CGS concentrations. PAHs were not detected in groundwater samples B13 or B15. • BTEX compounds were detected in groundwater samples B5, B12, B13, B14, and B15 below their respective CGS concentrations, • Approximately 3 inches of free-phase petroleum was measured in temporary well B8 during a subsequent site visit on September 2, 2008. Approximate 1.5 feet of free-phase petroleum was observed by Terracon in monitoring well MW-11 during the June 17, 2008 groundwater sampling performed as part of a of Phase I ESA. • Based on the scope of services described herein, Terracon identified additional soil or groundwater impact related to the former asphalt washout area that, in our opinion, should be included as part of a remediation program to meet CDPHE regulatory cleanup guidelines. Using the data collected during this SI and the test pit data summarized in WEt's December 2007 Site Characterization Report, Terracon prepared a revised volume estimate of petroleum-impacted soils in the vicinity of the former asphalt washout area. Terracon's estimate of petroleum-impacted soils includes an area approximately 150 feet by 250 feet. Terracon estimates the depths of excavation in the revised area to range between 6 and 17 feet bgs with an average petroleum-impacted soil thickness of 8 feet. The result is a revised in-place petroleum-impacted soil volume of approximately 11,000 bank cubic yards. Assuming a 25 percent expansion factor after excavation, the revised total soil volume is approximately 13,750 cubic yards. Based on work completed on site to date, Terracon has no indication that other areas of the site have been impacted. To further assess remaining portions of the site for indications of contamination, Terracon will provide an environmental professional to 4 BWAB Reef Gravel Pit,LLC 1rerracan Summary ConwR7ngEngimmen&sue„tins April 8,2009 observe future geotechnical borings and inform the client should such indications be encountered. Upon the client's request, Terracon will contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to discuss a summary of the investigation data and Terracon's recommendations concerning the site. When provided written authorization to proceed from the client, Terracon will prepare Integrated Corrective Action Plan (ICAP) (Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations, Section 100.26) for submittal to the CDPHE on the behalf of the land owner, based on the findings of Terracon's and previous subsurface investigations. We anticipate the ICAP will include: • General site information • Site history • Site characterization • Evaluation of applicable standards and determination of risk • Remedial alternatives evaluation • Remediation recommendation Upon submittal, the CDPHE has up to 45 days to review, comment, and approve the ICAP. Based on our experience, we anticipate additional regulatory meetings and negotiations to finalize the ICAP. Terracon will provide environmental representation during regulatory discussions and negotiations in connection to the ICAP submittal. Terracon will complete the remedial implementation and four to eight post-remediation monitoring events. Terracon will prepare site status and monitoring reports after each monitoring event that will include the following: • Documentation of field activities • Site plan showing pertinent features • Analytical laboratory results • Data evaluation and presentation of pertinent findings The CDPHE does not guarantee that a No Further Action (NFA) letter will be granted after a specific amount of time. However, in our experience working on similar projects with the CDPHE, NFA letters are commonly issued after contamination on the site has shown a trend of declining concentrations, even if contaminants remain above action 5 SWAB Reef Gravel Pit, LLC lrerracon Summary Consulting Snghwen&Scientists April 8,2009 levels. If it can validated through modeling that contaminant concentrations will decrease below groundwater standards before the contaminant plume reaches the site boundary. Terracon will continue to work closely with the CDPHE on your behalf in order to obtain closure for the site in a timely manner. Finally, if the proposed development is to include residential or human-occupied commercial structures, CDPHE may recommend vapor barriers and vapor mitigation systems be designed and installed for buildings to be situated on contaminated areas. Terracon will prepare and submit a No Further Action request to the CDPHE following the receipt of results indicating a significant downward trend in contaminant concentration. Please contact us if you have questions regarding this information or if we can provide any other services. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Michael R. Hivner Russell Pickering, M.S. Due Diligence Manger Senior Associate 6 #5 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN MODIFICATION BWAB REEF GRAVEL PIT 33415 STATE HIGHWAY 6 EDWARDS, COLORADO Terracon Project No.25097019 May 7, 2009 Prepared for: . COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLI „' TH AND ENVIRONMENT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND TE M GEMENT DIVISION 4300 Cherry k e Sou h Denver, Colora 0222-1530 jY Prepared by: iferracon 10 2 est 1-70 Frontage Road North Suite 3 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 May 7, 2009 Ms. Caren Johannes Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Re: Corrective Action Plan Modification BWAB Reef Gravel Pit 33415 State Highway 6 Edward, Colorado Terracon Project No. 26097019 Dear Ms. Johannes: Please find enclosed for your review,Terracon's Corrective Action Plan(CAP)Modification for the BWAB Reef Gravel Pit property (formerly owned by B&B .0 avating), located at 33415 State Highway 6, Edwards, Colorado. This CAP modificatio r,b developed based on subsurface investigation activities completed by Terracon Consult Inc. ,,eptember 2008,as well as,Site investigations efforts by Waste Engineering, Inc. a ree om Eriv, •nmental. We look forward to working with you on this pro -N a .If y quire additional information,please do not hesitate to contact us. ; ;v `4A Sincerely, �,� Terracon Consultants, Inc. Kevin J.Taylor, P.G. F Russell Pickering, M.S. Project Manager Environmental Department Manager cc: Mr. James Ryan, Reef Gravel Pit, LLC Mr. Lance Badger, Reef Gravel Pit, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION 2 3.0 SITE HISTORY 3 4.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 3 4.1 Physical Setting 3 4.2 Site Geology 4 4.3 Terracon Site Investigations 4 4.3.1 Phase 1 ESA Groundwater Sampling 4 4.3.2 Site Investigation 4 4.3.3 Soil Profile Description 4 4.3.4 Field Screening Method 5 4.3.5 Soil Sampling and Analyses 5 4.3.6 Groundwater Occurrence, Sampling, and Analyses 5 4.3.6.1 Elevation Survey and Ground ter Flow 6 4.3.6.2 Ground Sampling and Anal s 6 5.0 SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS AND EV A 6 5.1 Field Screening 6 5.2 Laboratory Analytical Results 6 5.2.1 Soil Sample Analytical Results. 7 5.2.2 Groundwater Sample A ":' .1 R Its 7 6.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLA OR .f ' N 8 6.1 Free-Phase Product r °P` ,1.- ` J 8 6.2 Impacted Soil Exca,kion _ 9 6.3 Monitoring Well Inst. .. � 10 6.4 Elevation Su . =" ... 11 6.5 Slug Tests 2 11 6.6 Post-Excava Grou Ito.water Monitoring 11 Appendix A- Figure 1- Topog :phic Map Figure 2 - Site Diagram Figure 3 - Relative Groundwater Elevation Diagram—September 2008 Figure 4 - Benzene and MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 5 - Petroleum-Impacted Soil Area Diagram Figure 6 - Proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Recovery Wells Appendix B: Table 1 - Summary of BTEX, MTBE and TPH Groundwater Analytical Results (Sampled June 17, 2008) Table 2- PID Field Screening Summary Table 3- Summary of BTEX, MTBE, TPH, and PAH Soil Analytical Results Table 4— Summary of BTEX, MTBE, and PAH Groundwater Analytical Results Appendix C- Laboratory Reports Appendix D- Boring Logs CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN MODIFICATION BWAB REEF GRAVEL PIT 33415 STATE HIGHWAY 6 EDWARDS, COLORADO 1.0 INTRODUCTION The BWAB Reef Gravel Pit property(formerly owned by B&B Excavating)is located at 33415 U.S. Highway 6 in Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado and is an approximate 104-acre tract of land currently occupied with an aggregate mining operation, a concrete batch plant and associated aggregate bins,four fuel dispensers, two above ground fuel storage tanks(ASTs), and a wetland(the Site). Terracon completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(ESA, Project No. 25087053) for the Site on July 18, 2008 which included sampling eight existing monitoring wells to evaluate petroleum-impacted groundwater. Terracon's client, BWAB Reef Gravel Pit, LLC, acquired the Site from B&B Excavating i ` to 2008. The client has indicated that they intend to begin redeveloping the Site as mixed ' residential and commercial in 2010. A Site characterization was performed by Free Environ tal in September 2004 that included installation of four soil borings and twel = •TM dwater monitoring wells(MW-1 through .,� . MW-12). WEI conducted a Site characte • ion b=�wzsr k:een August and November 2007 which consisted of advancing 13 test pits, collet a •Ies from the test pits, and sampling groundwater from four existing grow ter ton wells(MW-1, MW-5, MW-6, and MW- 11). On December 21, 2007, W sub :itte Site Characterization Report and Corrective Action Plan(CAP)to the Colorado Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)for review and approval. A C. 71'a sv tter was issued by CDPHE on September 4, 2008. Terracon reviewed previou 9 •ort "-repared by others for the Site that identified petroleum- impacted soil and groundwater ws .a included the December 2007 CAP report summarizing Site characterization activities consisting of test pits and sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells. The test pits and monitoring wells were located near a former truck washout area where diesel fuel was reportedly used to clean the beds of asphalt haul trucks. The Site characterization identified areas of petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the former truck washout area. The CAP, submitted on the behalf of B & B Excavating, included removal and disposal of petroleum-impacted soil, free product recovery and disposal, and proposed monitored natural attenuation. Terracon's ESA identified the release of petroleum products at the former asphalt washout area and potential petroleum releases from current and historic fueling areas as recognized environmental conditions and recommended an additional subsurface investigation to further delineate and/or investigate these areas for potential environmental impact. Terracon completed a Site investigation on September 8, 2009 that further characterized the extent of petroleum impact to shallow soil and groundwater from the asphalt washout operations. Terracon also investigated potential petroleum impact to soil and groundwater at the historic and CDPHE lterr,con Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 existing fueling areas identified during the ESA. Terracon met with CDPHE on February 25, 2009 to discuss the nature of the release, characterization activities, and potential corrective action scenarios for the Site. This CAP Modification provides additional delineation of petroleum impacts in the asphalt wash out area,summarizes the results of investigations in the current and historical fueling areas,and provides a comprehensive remedial plan to restore the Site. 2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION The Site is located north of State Highway 6 east of Edwards Spur in Edwards, Colorado. A concrete batch plant,associated aggregate bins,and two 10,000 gallon gasoline and diesel fuel ASTs are located in the south central portion of the Site are part of a leased area and are the only structures remaining on Site. The Site is bound to the north by Interstate 70. A Si' land area and the Eagle River are north and between the former truck wash out area nd In e, tate 70. An aggregate mine is located to the east of the Site and by undevelop ; nd and La• eCreek to the west. Highway 6 and a landscaping company property border the ' the south(Figure 2-Appendix A). Site characterization by Terracon and other ' en d total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH), primarily in the diesel fuel range, in oil a v olorado TPH soil target cleanup level concentration of 500 milligrams pe m( ; /kg). Laboratory analyses identified benzene, 2-methylnaphthalene,methyl terti b r t TBE),benzo(a)anthracene,benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,and naphthalene .z 5 rado roundwater Standard (CGS)concentrations. i"dYi1,, The source of released oundi b teved to have originated from the truck washout area associated with a former as . It ba h plant previously located on the Site. Project contact information is p ided below: Site Location 33415 State Highway 6 Edwards, Colorado Property Owner BWAB Reef Gravel Pit, LLC Contact: Mr. Lance Badger 56 Edwards Village Boulevard Edwards, Colorado 81632 Phone:970-926-3315 Fax: 970-926-3325 2 CDPHE Terracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 Project Contact Mr. Kevin Taylor(Terracon) 10625 West I-70 Frontage Road North, Suite 3 Wheat Ridge, Colorado Phone:303-423-3300 Fax: 303-423-3353 3.0 SITE HISTORY Based on review of the historical information,the Site was vacant prior to 1961 and developed between 1961 and 1979. Initial Site development consisted of Site mining,grading,and vehicle maintenance activities. tr 4.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION Terracon's Site characterization was performe hases. The first phase consisted of collecting groundwater samples as part of t e Ph ' I ESA from eight existing groundwater monitoring wells (MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, W-10, MW-11, and MW-12). The second phase was completed in Sep rym•es o er characterize the extent of previously documented petroleum-impact to e 4jow 'I and groundwater and consisted of advancing 15 borings to collect soil and gro 4,4k .r les. Temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed in ten of the Prior to mobilization to the , Ter on cleared utilities with the Utility Notification Center of Colorado. Terracon prepared h and safety plan to identify potential risks to Site workers and describe safety procedures follow during field activities. 4.1 Physical Setting The Site is located south of Interstate 70 and north of State Highway 6 approximately one half mile west of the intersection of Edward Spur and State Highway 6(northwest quarter of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 82 West) situated at an elevation of approximately 7,200 feet above mean sea level with a gentle surface gradient from the southwest to northeast. The Eagle River borders the Site wetland to the north. The north-flowing Lake Creek is located west of the Site. There are small paved areas near the entrance and exits of the concrete batch plant located on the south central portion of the Site and a concrete truck washout area. A small L-shape pond (Spring Lake)is located north of the batch plant. 3 CDPHE 11erracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 4.2 Site Geology Lithologles encountered during the Site investigations included a sandy,silty gravel fill overlying interbedded clay,silt, cobbles,gravel,and silty fine grain to well-sorted sand. According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, Geologic Map of the Colorado, 1979, the Site soils are classified as alluvium(Holocene and Pleistocene)underlain by Eagle Valley Formation(siltstone,shale,and gypsum - Middle to Upper Pennsylvanian siltstone). Terracon Site Investigations 4.2.1 Phase 1 ESA Groundwater Sampling On June 17, 2008, Terracon collected groundwater samples from existing monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-9, MW- 10, MW-11, and MW-12 using a new disposable bailer for each well after purging an amount of water equal to three well casing volumes. Samples were placed in laboratory-approved containers and transported under standard chain- of-custody procedures to Summit Scientific in Golden, Colorado for analysis of benzene, toluene,ethylbenzene,total xylenes(BTEX)and MTBE„A 'A Method 8260B)and TPH-carbon chain-gasoline,diesel,and oil range organics(EPAt.. ethos; 015). The laboratory results are summarized in Table 1 of Appendix B. The labo,,,%ry report ' e included in Appendix C. 4.2.2 Site Investigation I ,,; Field work was performed between A .•pst 1 ,-Ni--.,,e' A'1;gust 19,2008 and included advancing 15 borings (B1 through 615) to a m.,4* a de•, r of 27 feet below ground surface (bgs). The approximate boring locations an , t -;tires are depicted on Figure 2 of Appendix A. Boring services were perforlr: 0 • D'F,Ft ota Dri ling of Denver, Colorado on August 11 through August 15, 2008 using ,1 ME- `. •n *pig equipped with 6-inch diameter (3.25-inch inside diameter) hollow stem aug` (bori s B1 to B5) and a Dietrich 120 drill rig equipped with a 6 7/8-inch Odex® down-hole` ` - '4 tic hammer drill bit(borings B6 to B15). Boring depths ranged from 7 feet bgs (boring C. )to 27 feet bgs (borings B1, B4, and B6 through B9). Soil samples for lithologic characterization were observed from drill cuttings and from split-spoon samples collected at 5-foot intervals. Soil samples submitted for laboratory analyses were collected using the split-spoon sampler. Terracon's Site geologist inspected the soils for type, color, grain size, and other soil characteristics. Boring logs indicating the observed and interpolated stratification boundaries of the Site soils are presented in Appendix D. If encountered, the geologist made note of soil staining or fill material on the boring logs. Soil samples were collected and observed to document soil lithology,color, moisture content and sensory indications of potential impairment. 4.2.3 Soil Profile Description The borings encountered silty sand and gravel fill material with cobbles overlying native sand, gravel, cobbles, silt, and clay. Bedrock was not encountered. Indications of suspected 4 CDPHE irerracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 petroleum impact(i.e., gray stained soil and/or petroleum odor)were observed in boring B8 (from 12 to 27 feet bgs), borings B13 and B14(6 to 6.5 feet bgs),and in boring B15(6.5 to 7 feet bgs and 10 to 11 feet bgs). 4.2.4 Field Screening Method The ambient temperature headspace (ATH) soil screening method involved placing a representative sample from each soil core interval into Ziploc® bags, resealing the bags, and allowing the bag contents to equilibrate to the surrounding ambient temperature conditions. The sample intake nozzle of a Mini-Rae photo-ionization detector(PID)was Introduced into the individual sample bags to measure the volatile organic vapors in parts per million (ppm). The soil sample PID field screening measurements ranged from less than 1 ppm to 344 ppm(soil sample B8 at 10 feet bgs),as depicted in the PID Field Screening Summary included in Table 2 in Appendix B. 4.2.5 Soil Sampling and Analyses Soil samples were collected from the interval exhi taiti g the hi• ,; t observed(visual and/or PID measurements)petroleum impact. In the absen• •f Q'served petroleum impact,a soil sample was collected just above the expected gro dwate Viable. Soil samples were collected from 13 • he .0 a or laboratory analysis of BTEX, MTBE and TPH-carbon chain compoun•-" a"ling ,fusal in gravelly cobbles was encountered in boring B3 at 9 feet bgs and borin• . red� ��� which precluded collection of a soil sample at those boring locations. Two 911, s exhibiting TPH concentrations greater than 500 mg/kg (88-10 and B15-10)wer dition a"„ yzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH— EPA Method 8270). Soil samples were containerize in laboratory-prepared bottles and labeled identifying the sample name, collection time and date, and the requested laboratory analyses. The soil samples and completed chain-of-custody forms were placed in an ice-filled cooler and delivered to Summit Scientific in Golden, Colorado. 4.2.6 Groundwater Occurrence, Sampling, and Analyses With the exception of boring B3, all borings produced groundwater during drilling. Temporary monitoring wells were installed in borings B1, B2, B4, 88 to B13, and B15 to accommodate collection of equilibrated depth to groundwater measurements and groundwater samples. The temporary wells were constructed with one-inch flush-thread PVC pipe with 10 feet of slotted screen, a 10/20 mesh graded sand pack(extending to one foot above the screened interval), and a bentonite chip seal (two feet thick) above the sand pack, then backfilled with clean cuttings. The temporary well pipe was installed flush with the ground surface and covered with a steel plate. 5 CDPIIE irerracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 • May 7,2009 4.2.6.1 Elevation Survey and Groundwater Flow Terracon surveyed the relative elevations and measured the depths to groundwater in temporary wells B2, B4, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, and B15 on August 19, 2008, approximately four days after the last boring was installed. The relative elevation of temporary well B1 was not surveyed due to equipment obstructions at the time the survey was performed. This data was used to generate the relative groundwater elevation diagram depicted on Figure 3 of Appendix A. Depth to groundwater measurements in the temporary wells ranged from 5.92 feet bgs (boring B13)to15.31 feet below bgs(boring B1). Depth to groundwater measurements indicate that the flow direction of the shallow groundwater is to the north up to the central portion of the Site where the gradient becomes relatively flat with a slight southerly flow gradient on the northern portion of the Site possibly indicating an influence of the wetland area,as indicated on Figure 3(Appendix A). On September 2, 2008, Terracon inspected the tempor =, .wells B8, B11, B12, B13, and B14 near the former asphalt washout area for free-pha oleum using an interface probe. Approximately three inches of petroleum was obs Ad in B: 4:` Asa+• 4.2.6.2 Ground Sampling and Analyses From August 13 through August 19,2009, r• ndwater samples were collected from borings B1, B2, B4 through B15, ' . a .• e-u polyethylene bailer, containerized in laboratory-prepared bottles and s �` to S mit Scientific for laboratory analyses of BTEX and MTBE. Groundwater sample r:y, 1 and B15 were also submitted for analysis of PAHs. i 5.0 SITE INVESTIGATIO LTS AND EVALUATION Field observations and laboratory analyses from Terracon's two Site investigations are presented in the following sections. 5.1 Field Screening Soil samples were screened in the field indications for potential environemntal impact, as discussed above in Section 4.3.4. A summary of the observed PID field measurements for the August Site investigation is presented in Table 2 of Appendix B. 5.2 Laboratory Analytical Results The Summit Scientific's laboratory analytical reports are presented in Appendix C. The following sections summarize the soil and groundwater analytical results. The analytical program was selected to evaluate the potential for petroleum impacts in soil and groundwater at the Site. 6 CDPHE 1rerrrcon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 5.2.1 Soil Sample Analytical Results Terracon compared the soil BTEX analyses to the concentrations contained in CDPHE - Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDPHE) — Table 1 —Colorado Soil Evaluation Values(CSEVs),Groundwater Protection Levels,December 2007. Analytical results for TPH were compared to CDPHE's, Information Regarding the Management of Petroleum Contaminated Soil, Third Edition, Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels(RBSLs),October 2003. Table 3 of Appendix B summarizes the BTEX, MTBE, TPH, and PAH soil sample analytical results. A summary of the soil analytical data is provided below: • • Laboratory analyses did not detect BTEX, MTBE,or TPH in soil samples collected from borings B1-15,B2-10, B4-10,B6-10, B7-10, B9-10,B10-15,B11-10,B12-10,or B13-5. • Laboratory analyses detected petroleum fuel constituents ethylbenzene and total xylenes in soil sample B8-10 at 160 micrograms per kiiog (pg/kg)and total xylenes at 640 pg/kg. Ethylbenzene and total xylenes were d , ed soil sample B15-10 at 27 pg/kg and 110 pg/kg. The detected concentration reth •-nzene and total xylenes in these two soil samples were below their resp a SEVs'• 100,000 pg/kg and 175,000 pg/kg. • Laboratory analyses detected TP s ample B8-10 at 3,900 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), in soil sample B1 1 mg/kg, and in soil sample B15-10 at 1,000 mg/kg. The TPH con ' = ion soil samples B8-10 and B15-10 are above the Colorado TPH soil clean • •-€• -I f 500 mg/kg. • Based on a TPH co a o`•,reater than 500 mg/kg,soil samples B8-10 and B15-10 were submitted f borato alysis of PAHs. Laboratory analysis of soil sample B8- 10 detected PAH c oun acenaphthene (1,100 pg/kg), fluorene (2,200 pg/kg), naphthalene(2,900 pg enanthrene(4,900 pg/kg),and pyrene(510 pg/kg)below their respective CSEV concentration of 1,000,000 pg/kg. No PAH compounds were detected in soil sample B15-10. 5.2.2 Groundwater Sample Analytical Results Groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 1 and Table 4,Appendix B. Terracon compared the groundwater analytical results to the maximum contaminant levels specified in the CDPHE, Water Quality Control Commission, 5CCR 1002-41, Regulation 41, The Basic Standards for Groundwater, May 2008. Terracon compared the MTBE concentrations to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety (OPS) document-Petroleum Storage Tank Owner/Operator Guidance Document, Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs), October 2005. A summary of the groundwater analytical data is provided below. BTEX, MTBE, and PAH groundwater concentrations are expressed in 7 CDPHE Terracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 micrograms per liter(µg/I). Groundwater concentrations for TPH are expressed in milligrams per liter(mg/I). No BTEX constituents were detected in groundwater samples MW-2, MW-5, MW-9, MW-10, MW-12, B1, B2, 84, B6, B7, B9, B10, and B11. Groundwater samples MW-11, B8, and B12 through B15 contained BTEX constituents below their respective CGS concentrations. Groundwater samples MW-11 (6.9 pg/I), B8(59 pg/I)and B13(13 pg/I)contained benzene at concentrations above the CGS for benzene of 5 µg/I. No MTBE was detected in groundwater samples MW-2, MW-5,MW-9 through MW-12,B1, B2, B4 through B7,or B9 through B14. Laboratory analysis detected MTBE in groundwater samples MW-4 (9.0 pg/I), MW-6 (13.0 mil) and B15 (6.0 pg/I) below the MTBE RBSL of 20 µg/I. Groundwater sample B8 contained an MTBE concentration of 34 pg/L which is above the MTBE RBSL. No PAH were detected in groundwater samples collect- Ys m B10,B13 and B15. Groundwater sample B8 contained acenaphthene(124 /I ant "3 e p p µg ), �W -ne �_e 1 µg/l},fluoranthene(23.3 µg/l), k: fluorene (188 pg/I), phenanthrene (369 µg/l), a ® pyre e (73.5 1,g/l)at concentrations above their respective CGS. Phenanthrene is not regul='sn groundwater. Groundwater sample B8 contained benzo(a)anthracene(31.9 pg/I),, o(a) ' ne(12.4 pg/I),chrysene(34.2 µg/I),and naphthalene(395 µg/I)at concentrations a Ave'-t:'ire pective CGS. No TPH were detected in grounm,;:rate 4 arri`.,es MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-9 and MW-10. Groundwater sample M i 1 a -1,800 mg/I as gasoline range organics(GRO), 1,400 mg/I as diesel range ozolli sTbrO),and 60 mg/I as oil range organics(ORO). MW-12 contained 120 mg/I as Dr and 8 g. s ORO. Colorado has not established a regulatory concentration for TPH in g dwatt. . 6.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN MODIFICATION 6.1 Free-Phase Product Removal Terracon observed 1.5 feet of free-phase petroleum hydrocarbons (product) in existing monitoring well MW-11 on June 17, 2008 and approximately 3 inches of product in boring B-8 on September 2,2008(approximately 4 weeks after boring installation). Terracon will install up to two 4-inch diameter recovery wells to accommodate a product recovery system and/or enhanced fluid recovery using a vacuum truck. The tentative locations of the proposed recovery wells(RW-1 and RW-2)are indicated on Figure 6,Appendix A. Terracon will conduct product recovery operations for up to two months prior to excavating petroleum-impacted soil. It is likely that the recovery wells will be removed during remedial excavation. If free product is 8 CDPHE Terracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 encountered during excavation activities it will be recovered using a vacuum truck or absorbent materials for off-site disposal at an authorized disposal facility. The recovery well borings will be advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a 6 7/8- inch Odex® down-hole pneumatic hammer drill bit. The borings will be advanced to an estimated maximum depth of 20 feet bgs. Each recovery well will be constructed of 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 polyvinylchloride (PVC) well materials. Well casing and screen connections will be flush threaded. The well screens will be 15 feet long with 0.020-inch factory- cut slots. The annular space around the well screens will be backfilled with clean,well-sorted, 10-20 mesh silica sand as a filter pack between the formation material and the well screen. The filter pack will extend approximately 2 feet above the top of the well screen. The top of the filter pack will be measured with a weighted measuring tape for depth confirmation. A bentonite pellet seal,2 feet thick,will be placed in the annular space above the filter pack. The bentonite seal surface will be measured with a weighted measurin tape for depth confirmation. The annular space above the bentonite seal will be filled bentonite chips and hydrated with potable water. The recovery wells will be developed by removi ©4 r r•idwater until it appears relatively clear and free of sediment. Development will be erfor ,by pumping, surging and extracting the groundwater in the well to help remove se : , •; ,elop the sand filter pack, and to help restore the natural conductivity of t - X•uif a evelopment will be performed using a bailer, hand pump, or with a d e+: -h d lopment pump. Surging with groundwater extraction will be accomplished u z a -:. ... o k or bailer. Development water will be stored in 55-gallon drums for disp Sy 6.2 Impacted Soil Ex Lion The CDPHE-approved CAP es 1, ted approximately 8,000 bank cubic yards (bcy)would be excavated for disposal. Based on Terracon's supplemental investigations, the estimated petroleum-impacted soil volume is increased to 11,000 bcy. This is equivalent to 13,700 loose cubic yards assuming a bulking factor of 25 percent. Additional soil impacts were identified horizontally with petroleum-impacted soils identified in boring B8 and vertically in the test pits. The petroleum-impacted soil volume contains soil TPH concentrations that are above the CDPHE soil remediation threshold concentration of 500 mg/kg. The estimated petroleum- impacted soil area is delineated on Figures 5 and 6 in Appendix A. Excavation depths are expected to range from six feet to seventeen feet across the excavation area. In some areas, five to eight feet of clean soil overburden may need to be segregated and later replaced in the excavation as backfill. Terracon will excavate impacted soil vertically to a TPH concentration of less than 500 mg/kg or groundwater, whichever is encountered first. Excavated soil will be disposed of at either at the South Canyon Landfill near Glenwood Springs or Eagle County Landfill near Wolcott. Excavated petroleum-impacted soil will be staged prior to loading in 9 CDPHE lrerracon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 trucks. Waste profile samples will be collected for every 500 cubic yards of soil intended for landfill disposal. During excavation, Terracon will field screen and visually monitor the soil for evidence of petroleum impact. Field screening will consist of observations for odors, stains, residues,and monitoring for volatile organic vapors with a PID using the ATH field screening procedures. Confirmation soil samples will be collected from the remaining unexcavated soil at a minimum frequency of one sample per 500 square feet of excavation floor area and one sample per 100 linear feet of excavation sidewall. The purpose of the samples will be to confirm the degree to which soil is contaminated and to confirm that contamination has been removed to an extent considered practicable. Soil samples will be transported under standard chain-of-custody procedures to our contract laboratory for analyses. Soil samples will be analyzed for BTEX/MTBE and TPH-carbon chain(GRO,DRO,and OR Samples with TPH concentrations exceeding 500 mg/kg will be submitted for analysis of P . It is anticipated that approximately 40 to 50 confirmation soil samples will be collected. h cavation will remain open until +Si..• confirmation samples are received in the event a e®i ional ex tion is needed. Terracon will document field screening activities, sample I:" y io , `and laboratory analysis results in a summary report. n. Use of commercially available nitrot an s ate fertilizer will be considered for the excavation prior to backfilling wi p� "lea bac``'II material to stimulate and enhance aerobic biodegradation of dissolved petro m ,A414rnts. Terracon will prepare a rzuort su f`' at zing the remedial excavation activities, confirmation sampling, and disposal of roleu `mpacted soil. 6.3 Monitoring Well installs on Monitoring wells MW-5 and MW-6 installed by Freedom Environmental will be included as part of the groundwater monitoring program. Terracon proposes to install six additional, 2-inch groundwater monitoring wells(MW-1 3 to MW-18)at the proposed locations depicted on Figure 6 of Appendix A. It is assumed that existing monitoring well MW-11 will be removed during the remedial excavation. Monitoring well borings will be advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a 6 7/8- inch Odexn down-hole pneumatic hammer drill bit. The proposed monitoring well installed in the excavation may be able to be installed using 10-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. The borings will be advanced to an estimated depth of 20 feet bgs. For each well boring, Terracon will collect soil samples from ground surface to the bottom of the boring at 5-foot intervals for visual classification. The monitoring wells will be constructed of 2-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC well materials. Well casing and screen connections will be flush threaded. The well screens will be 10 CDPHE 1rerrecan Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 15 feet long with 0.010-inch factory-cut slots. The annular space around the well screens will be backfilled with clean,well-sorted, 10-20 mesh silica sand as a filter pack between the formation material and the well screen. The filter pack will extend approximately 2 feet above the top of the well screens. The top of the filter pack will be measured with a weighted measuring tape for depth confirmation. A bentonite seal,2 feet thick,will be placed in the annular space above the fitter pack. The finished bentonite seal surface will be measured with a weighted measuring tape for depth confirmation. The annular space above the bentonite seal will be filled with bentonite chips and hydrated with potable water. After installation, the monitoring wells will be developed by removing groundwater until it appears relatively clear and free of sediment. Development and purge water will be contained in 55-gallon drums for off-site disposal. Details summarizing the monitoring well installations, development and final locations will be included in the first groundwater status report. 6.4 Elevation Survey Terracon will subcontract a professional land su y co ny to survey the location and elevations of the monitoring wells and other p ent ite fea ,res. The static groundwater depth in each well will be measured during sample• ents. The resulting data will be compiled and plotted to generate a groundwater pot et urface map. 6.5 Slug Tests Falling head/rising head slug test a . • ed in at least two of the proposed monitoring wells usinga down-hole pre -.g „ "'° .ucer/.ata logger. An estimate of hydraulic conductivity, _ ' groundwater flow directior•--nd gr •4.ter flow velocity will be calculated based on the results of the slug tests. .77 6.6 Post-Excavation Grou` "C ater Monitoring Upon removing the petroleum-impacted soils,the proposed groundwater monitoring wells will be installed. Eight Site groundwater monitoring wells consisting of existing monitoring wells(MW-5 and MW-6)and newly installed monitoring wells(MW-13 through MW-18)will be sampled on a quarterly basis for two years following remedial activities. Static water levels will be measured and the monitoring wells will be purged of three well volumes prior to sampling. Field indicator parameters including pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation- reduction potential (ORP)will be monitored during purging. Well purging and groundwater samples will be collected using a single-use disposable bailer or peristaltic pump. Purge water will be contained in 55-gallon drums for off-site disposal. Groundwater samples for laboratory analyses will be collected for BTEX/MTBE,PAH,and dissolved RCRA metals analyses. For the first year of quarterly monitoring,dissolved iron and manganese(EPA Method 6010),biological oxygen demand(BOO- EPA Method 405.1/SM 5210B-5 day), and chemical oxygen demand (COD — EPA Method 410.4/SM 5220D) will be included in the sampling plan to monitor the 11 CDPHE 1rerrnon Corrective Action Plan Modification Project No.25097019 May 7,2009 progression of biodegradation. Groundwater samples will be collected in the appropriate laboratory-supplied containers and placed in an iced cooler and delivered to an analytical laboratory using standard COC procedures. The data listed above will be included in a groundwater status report provided to the CDPHE within 45 days of completing each groundwater monitoring event. Each report will include a potentiometric surface diagram and recommendations, as necessary. A completion report will be submitted to CDPHE and the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety for review and approval at the conclusion of the two- year ground water monitoring program. The report will document final water quality conditions at the facility and the progress made to reduce contaminant concentrations in groundwater to meet CDPHE groundwater standards. However, if during the monitoring period, contaminant rebound is observed,Terracon may recommend that in-situ chemical remedial injections and/or additional excavation be completed to more quickly and effectively reduce contaminant mass at the Site. If at the end of the monitoring period,the CAP el vi re criteria are fulfilled,Terracon will request a No Further Action determination for Site. itP k_ h'L 'NT$ ' d � 12 x zce W a — a u- = U .,5-;\\ i, /!, per . . d , k� : ( 1 1 4 i....§ ( .., 41 '.4 l'iL.:4,-,T.,,,'. N V P I 'c .,?,\1<c: hr., / ,,,, ,,,,e/iii07,, ,„,>,\-7,__ _, 0.0 P. . - .1--; iit L...,:,:„;:dr- ..--, pki i) r ` ii m ID C0 t-I ,4, '-'N\ _------- '41--------.'---- ' j—le-rdri'1,41:' ;__-_ 1)-. 1-i-. o 61 ,j..-1_,"9,7. _,::'•,% \ ."'"•••••-'-‘,'"1.••:7,, i , .. '''',•.3, "'. i \,./1 ' '-''' ‘ 1 ' ,..,_,_ t),S LE ______,. , . _, ,, . . . , , . _ !„ ...„ : . . , . ,, \...„2",_,_ _ _ ,-.,., 4114,. , ,...„--., .,:::._ i 7-11kle 'ilii-4. -,Irit ','-i 4 '''. :------_-2*-,--S..1 -- ---( I.,:ok,...\-----__44 r-,`„.. ,- y i,1 ' a c.. ' ' '.}, 4., .7.1._-_—__.)--).-,..4( a �- ! svy t, I,' 1� r ' r g, �o r m 4- Z Y`bN \ \ ZN4�0-�2 nU 4 \ \ W �� \ N ai Z14 l \ ��� Ixl Ca Ca \\v._ `V N 1� <.; a. W ". \' a c-tw C-2., \ v 7 10,.*----_,._\ I N m rSZy sr, 11- t , ...;ze. (.) ect) d. Oz ra11 CC 4�aL Wv��' Cat$1 Y SNQ?j`C tea(_ Uk4N�p. g N JPYd Z w iii a ai i j O Z 0 Y t r 0 00 N rc cct U-a Willi e. f occ lilii cD a. co C -�yS CE 3 C O g O m 'a O Z 1 F % I I \ Z o w ( I \ d co ~ J w 6 I \ co w w L m w a Lu co I sit_ X ¢ J s a a - g 1 O QQ> 3 0 I C[�� Q U' x o m ] LL lo/ W a' "' o /�4 w LLI ye 9 k\E \ m a' \ . ffi i2 % H m la ri5 ci a. 1"N....\4L o z = w g > LD i w wiii C i 8g u .___________________________________________T ( men ' 1 �__ �_____--J `I 0 U' 2 I w¢i.� h 1y O Z KE ?0a m 2%W 2 Q X 2 \ ss \ „ \s„ \ \ c,.. t, VI. . , „ w „ f:4. N y c� r cco ul �y \ cr) cz — Q ,, Q`� -- --` to ` v �.., —i If y i \ � z� c / \ It 04 \ 4 � m ti ,i ,: t ,„ e , a i , ..„, / M m w , , I 44-0 .. o m _ (_\ 5 '34 iii 1%, w R g ) '5 I t w ) - ri- tt _____ , C ,_ Vii ii 1 J � . ' s. F_ �u Z. 1 v s II 1' W O N cc Q c m.O m a 2 IS 0 ZY �cc. o(f) w (9 x o 0 al 4 tel fi o w ui / MJ f/ ►'i al 4 -.....er P i \\` S 1 1 U .• 1-7 it i ¢•a a■ d ■� . Nsi al ; Pia r •■ O'I lit o Vi at �` i Z 0 V 2 ', a 44 )402 10 2 CR0 3 £ Pt to t ...I It: C re U' a 2 Z oz }- w E 5 F Q- w i g W • ) \ i w ~ ( \\ co co W LL LL 01 11- °W E J ¢ I y W N ~ m W 0 m OLu Od F � 3 z o �v N U Z Cl-X = i CI w w g w I- CO a_— o 7 a_ W a / 1 ,,0 co _________________________I ( , ," , ) I i 13 e w �2, g -- --- 11 `I aE >133210 3)It/l i % CE a I 1- 1- o a . Z 0 Z o J J J J l Wx cc ~ O O - ZO Itu U pW W H 2 O \ Q. 4 m K � o J z go w a D. a ! f w $ \ # / .1 = _ _ o cc \\��� ' \ , \ ! ! 9992zz ' q LI . £ z !4 ! ■ !e _ 00000 \ !% ) $E*Kb- '# b ! § §k ^ ±±±6 -z : a !! ! 48 /��Ew z. ! °/&% } . ,� , cw,. , . . } ! 3,2 K 4. © E !! % §x ■ k� ? \ - ! � ) mCLao � § /° « ! )! , <I-V%2 . c —2—ao 0 2 | \ ,� # 0, 8 �� . . : . z z z z .G < , m !» |_ - �c'4 \ -. !� z > ! \| ! " Ba«LIJ ' @ |k2 \ 2@ ! 7 k I _ 2 \ © k( ( j\) }E \ k7 \ sz | k| k «£ ! U I § ii)« !° ail f : £ ! ( ( ( ( 2 k !� ! !! f I k � ���^ \/ §) U Ili u ` 2 t\ !\ i 111 2 , !' 1 IT 2! ii 0® \% 76 fi 2 \\. B - _ cc z» t $ P-- ; � .e < .e { t . <\) ) ) v - ƒ / / ) ) k k ) k r. 2 ® \ \ ( \ 2 e e = ( /2 = _ !- 2 $f - —) • §0-a 63 f . g e ; C C ± g / ® �§§ 6 2 te © ° , © ! : ± « # 2e, • a © ( } C © r ` - ) ( Z ® k f 7 t I�7°2 ` ` ` \_ § A' 7777k\ / «!J 2 w ; r :$ ; \ t \ \ ® i \ \ \ t » \ % f? Q a■w c - § 2 P - -r - - - ta)- - & \ K] z u.m § \ - - , ` - - 2 , \ E a \ } , d V . T.; � t � § § , . g . / V 7 \ c V V f ) - 7 ( \ \ ƒ A . ' « � 91 ® 9 1- 9 ® e - ; 2 » ; 6 § c = a c = m + § 3 § a5 a5 § \ illi t 2 D. i r pppp ppppS p We�We W N 0 _ e pN§WIn 54V` U 6 r c -NNR ,0 3 Q Q aa Q Q Z 2 Z 2 2 Z Z '-: 8 > t Z z 2 Z Z m t?„-Jc F I n a` .r!A, c ! rm5fi co i yu5 Y o m 75 cEnroc 181E 3N 2 l6 i`'' Elite 8 a FEE py E A 118 C - -0, �,�'i -d G =w$nmo _ ,,., 0 0 0 0 0 oox 0 o 0 0 0 S 000x .. ;.;atr o1 .., Oa a1 ib � z z z z z ¢Kd z z Z Z 2 N IX CC IX 0- g ' 7 `oi d— 091- 00 oi- w M-0 > O N .,,, x= 2 2 f}9 '�ZS.'',, 4._ R 8 pp ' E 0 C E U G - a m F!-F " o ,E v g I1i , ,,.. RE A;; p N o QQ S�'i6 Ii ��a ZS'�, �°z @E m a ul e co 0 O 0 O O c m 0 0 0 O 0 O c m w S i0 N . _8 @ 8t ' 2 0 a, z z z z z m e z z z z z z m e o g i 3g_ v�p $ G 'rI' m yy X !'';.�..� e O .o L 9C!:� 6 W V Ti co wi- R x S S x 2 S = x S a ..,w I L e` fo i e! atti E , 0.0. w a to rar ar rar rar i s z x E _ . f �,a, x = C LW a u7,ul,,, ,. u7 pw q m .r a a 9, w_p pmomo� o pm m� m'_m z,,: ,E':0'e�:'am "ui mA�m� 2 m2mpZpmgm1m m u`�i`;"7;1 kt.aN ;;'fit' 9. m M n m w w ul w w w ' }' 4 , ;1. y.rp!; ,: a .+ x m 1¢_ r r r 4 = Q? ., Kw.,'� a o 0 E gz i"a a me- ~U Zv F r i- Y �p ,I,, mo mm a m O—�p o N N M CO Yf �o�p LO O.O'7 04�G.W.74, �' a L F a j .M M, N M t'1 V M'0„ ` NiN`� i.N C5qq <,f E6 O '.:O Fn§ Q O j 3 N ZO O VIIJ J m z c ��z z z u c m mmm Cm m�K a. m 1. HliiiiikiiI1ih1U �5m Il H ,mii l fi E_2 5c2 0. E m m,. J,4, 0, ,mm.,k``,u�h';, 'i 4OJ N A n N A M N��:0 11iO i o c U o r 0 0 ..Q:,:' :'�, m m m 7 a E N W T c m , N 'er C7 t O Z 15, 0 0 0 0 O m m 'I t,m.- '$: g c 0 co o 15 _ . U } y z z z z z g c%, c i.;. ,.`. z w 3 m E 9 Qo p . Luigi, WN °mx Z 3 a '0 go go;a - c m N�213 m e ,3. m c o c. F m o,£ o m m o•A W Q W m t�to- H pI F W N - ,., o 2m W �' z 8 m 2 Ed g co O # w w w w m m m °',a, z ' UI g70 mm r .. m o aW a g o a mm `; EVc Cs) $9g o W O pp o G f k 3 UN -' NLL % Y a_v v J p C faV �"� 9.g a s1 :; Q o 4 U Z 2 4:b,'t:'' Ui ,,„Iii 0,.: a C:Pr-8 s - N M Yl O W N O W0.,c, , • 0.1 7 d N CI N W r lD N O O N'e lA�i "�0'' mE 12 0W s.E d o � C7� ~Te o 0 0 r aIR •y Z Z m N F, -i; .;;;_;, ",. es r 0 S.m m o m m 2 m 7,�,(;'':2 m i':T m m - mX mX m w m cm X-r...' m..0 Z£ m o o S o g o p ro o 5 5 m c-E,,,s 1 d Q O rrE$rrmr2mI-WI- t—IW;t' 2 5.N c a m $ . m 2 2 S p��'v .' �di m c4 E N C w a 144 a. ;t ,4, 4 t ,:A, . ,,. a wm2O `" N ' . ',ivoRm m m c^� °' aEcw ^.,.,;:e II 0 30 < w ,t9.,''' cm �:r �'IE7:�.;t:: m g0gv m �� U - N #6 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. STATE OF COLORADO John W.Hickenlooper,Governor g cow Christopher E.Urbina,MD,MPH A,._��,-� Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Ir e, . ,i Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado ,* (A *! 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Services Division *t87s Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. - " Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928 Colorado Department Located in Glendale,Colorado (303)692-3090 of Public Health http://www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment BY ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL October 28,2011 Eagle River Meadows LLC do Mr. Otis C. Moore,III,Principal Westside Investment Partners,Inc. 7100 East Bellevue Avenue, Suite 350 Greenwood Village,Colorado 80111 RE: Final Agency Action—No Further Action Determination Review of Groundwater Monitoring Reports,First Quarter 2010 and Second Quarter 2011 Former B&B Excavating Property(Eaton-Calhoun Pit,DNR Permit#M-1981-029) 33415 Highway 6 Edwards, Colorado SW/EAG/BBE 3.1 Dear Mr.Moore: The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division("the Department")has completed a review of the First Quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Report dated May 25,2011 and the Second Quarter 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Report dated July 21,2011("the reports")for the former B&B Excavating Property(Eaton- Calhoun Pit,DNR Permit#M-1981-029)("the site")in Edwards,Colorado.The reports were provided to the Department as part of the Corrective Action Plan(CAP) for the site that was approved by the Department on June 4,2008,with a modification submitted and approved by the Department on June 22,2009. An additional revision and modification to the Corrective Action Plan was approved by the Department on August 11,2009. The reports document ground water monitoring conducted at the site as required under the Corrective Action Plan. The petroleum-based contamination found in soils and ground water at the site was identified during an initial site characterization investigation. The site contamination is believed to have occurred due to historic mining and equipment maintenance practices and improper disposal of petroleum-based contaminants to soils that took place at the site during its operation as a gravel pit.The initial corrective measures taken at the site under the CAP were completed in 2009 and consisted of excavating contaminated soils to either a non-detect level as demonstrated by soil samples taken at the bottom and sides of the excavation,or to the point where ground water was encountered. Excavated soils were then Eagle River Meadows LLC c/o Mr. Otis C. Moore,III,Principal Westside Investment Partners,Inc. October 28, 2011 Page 2 of 3 taken to the Eagle County Landfill for disposal and the site was backfilled with clean fill. The site's ground water was then monitored to demonstrate that the contamination had been removed from the subsurface. An initial report on the corrective actions dated December 11,2009 was submitted to the Department and provided a summary of the initial correctives measures and the first post-cleanup groundwater monitoring event. The Department approved the initial corrective measures/groundwater monitoring event report on March 18,2010 with the requirement that additional monitoring be conducted at the site to further demonstrate the success of the soil removal. The reports indicate the majority of the constituents of concern initially identified in ground water and soil in the Corrective Action Plan,namely non-chlorinated volatile organic constituents and poly- aromatic hydrocarbons, are no longer detected in groundwater samples obtained from the site. Methyl tert-butyl ether was detected in source area monitoring well MW-14 during three of the post-closure monitoring events.However,all of the detections were at levels below the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety's risk-based screening level of 0.020 mg/1 (Underground Storage Tank Regulations, Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels,January 2009). Because neither the State's Water Quality Control Commission nor Department have a numeric standard in ground water for Methyl tert-butyl ether,the Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety risk-based screening level for methyl tert-butyl ether was used as clean up criteria for this constituent. Concentrations of dissolved metals in ground water were either below established regulatory standards for ground water(Regulation No.41,The Basic Standards for Ground Water(5 CCR 1002-41)),or were not reported above laboratory reporting limits during the post-closure monitoring events.Additional parameters measured during the ground water monitoring events such as dissolved oxygen and oxygen reduction potentials were also evaluated.The reports state that dissolved oxygen levels were measured to be at or less than 0.49 mg/1 and oxidation reduction potentials were generally found to be negative, suggesting that anaerobic degradation of petroleum-based contamination is occurring in the subsurface. Trends from the data presented in the reports support the reports' scenario that natural attenuation of remaining low levels of petroleum contamination is occurring at the site and will continue to further degrade these constituents.The reports request based on the data provided that a"No Further Action" determination be made for the site. Based on the information provided in the reports,the Department concurs that the actions described above,namely removal of petroleum-contaminated soils and post-soil removal monitoring for constituents in ground water that may have been associated with the contamination,that were taken to remediate the site appear to have addressed the site's contamination that resulted from improper disposal of petroleum contaminated material.Therefore, as final agency action,the Department hereby approves the reports as submitted and plans to take no further actions with regard to the remediation requirements as defined in the aforementioned CAP,as amended,for this site. In closing,please note the Department is authorized to bill at a rate of$125 per hour for its review of technical submittals pursuant to Section 1.7 of the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities. The fee ceiling is$10,000 per year for review of documentation associated with corrective Eagle River Meadows LLC do Mr. Otis C. Moore,III, Principal Westside Investment Partners,Inc. October 28,2011 Page 3 of 3 action sites,which includes staff time spent on the review of plans and reports and for associated meetings and other communications. An invoice for the Department's review of the above referenced documents will be transmitted under separate cover to Eagle River Meadows LLC. We thank you for your cooperation in ensuring the successful completion of this cleanup. If you have any additional questions,please contact either Caren Johannes at(303) 692-3347 or by e-mail at caren.johannes@state.co.us,or Roger Doak, Solid Waste Permitting Unit Lead at(303)692-3437 or by e-mail at roger.doak@state.co.us. Sincerely, Caren Johann Roger Doak,Unit Leader Compliance Coordination and Assistance Unit Solid Waste Permitting Unit Solid and Hazardous Waste Program Solid Waste and Material Management Program Cc: Mr.Dustin Czapla, Colorado Department of Natural Resources,Division of Mining and Reclamation(101 S. 3rd Street,Room 201,Grand Junction,Colorado 81501) Mr.Dan Schneider,Terracon Consultants,Inc. Mr. Ray Merry,Eagle County Health Department C:\CASWstufl\BandBExc\bbexc nfa_fm.doc #7 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. 0/111044 Environmental Impact Report RiverPark Eagle County, Colorado prepared for: Resort Concepts 225 Main Street,Suite C-101, PO Box 5127, Edwards,CO 81632 prepared by: Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder,CO 80302 February 2017 Table of Contents Section/Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Existing Environment 1 2.1 Hydrology 1 2.1.1 Surface Water 1 2.1.2 Groundwater 1 2.2 Atmospheric Condition 2 2.3 Geology & Hazards 3 2.3.1 Geology 3 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards 4 2.4 Soils 5 2.5 Vegetation Resources 6 2.5.1 Vegetation Types 6 2.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern 7 2.6 Wildlife Resources 8 2.6.1 Habitat Types 8 2.6.2 Federally Listed Species 8 2.6.3 State of Colorado Threatened or Endangered Species 9 2.6.4 Raptors 10 2.6.5 Game Species and Other Wildlife-Related Issues 10 2.7 Wastes: Impacted Soils & Groundwater 11 2.8 Noise & Odors 12 2.9 Visual Resources 12 2.10 Circulation & Transportation 13 3.0 Proposed Project 13 4.0 Impacts & Mitigation 14 4.1 Hydrology 14 4.1.1 Surface Water 14 4.1.2 Groundwater 14 4.2 Atmospheric Condition 14 4.3 Geology & Hazards 14 4.3.1 Eagle River and Lake Creek Flooding 14 4.3.2 Alluvial Fan Flooding 15 4.3.3 Construction Related Slope Instability 15 4.3.4 Ground Subsidence 15 4.3.5 Sinkhole Potential 15 4.3.6 Earthquake Considerations 15 4.4 Soils 16 4.5 Vegetation Resources 16 4.5.1 Vegetation Types 16 4.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern 17 4.6 Wildlife Resources 17 4.6.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species 17 4.6.2 State of Colorado Threatened or Endangered Species 17 4.6.3 Raptors 18 4.6.4 Big Game 18 4.6.5 Game Birds and Waterfowl 18 4.6.6 Small Game and Furbearers 18 4.7 Wastes 18 4.8 Noise & Odors 19 Table of Contents (continued) Section/Title Page 4.9 Visual Resources 19 4.10 Circulation & Transportation 19 5.0 Cumulative & Long-term Effects and Irreversible Environmental Changes 20 5.1 Hydrology 20 5.1.1 Surface Water 20 5.1.2 Groundwater 20 5.2 Atmospheric Condition 20 5.3 Geology & Hazards 20 5.4 Soils 20 5.5 Vegetation Resources 21 5.6 Wildlife Resources 21 5.7 Wastes 21 5.8 Noise & Odors 21 5.9 Visual Resources 21 5.10 Circulation & Transportation 21 6.0 Figures 22 7.0 References 28 Appendix A. USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics for the Eagle River A1-A2 Appendix B. Correspondence from CDPHE B1-B2 Appendix C. IPaC Resource List C1-C13 List of Figures Number/Title Page Figure 1. Project Location Map. 23 Figure 2. Existing Conditions 24 Figure 3. Geology Map 25 Figure 4. Soils Map 26 Figure 5. Vegetation Type Map 27 Figure 6. Development Plan &Wetland Map Back folder List of Tables Number/Title Page Table 1. Ambient Air Concentration Estimates 2 Table 2. Vegetation Types 6 Table 3. Federally Listed & Proposed Wildlife 8 Table 4. Estimated Soil Impact 16 Table 5. Estimated Vegetation Type Impact 16 Table 6. RiverPark Trip Generation Analysis 20 1.0 Introduction Resort Concepts has plans to develop a new residential neighborhood on a 105 acre parcel of land located in the Eagle River valley northwest of Edwards, as shown on Figure 1. The project site is located in Sections 31 and 32, Township 4 South, Range 82 West and Sections 5 and 6, Township 5 South, Range 82 West. Interstate Highway 1-70 and the inactive tracks of the Union Pacific railroad border the project site on the north and U.S. Highway 6 borders the project site on the south. The Eagle River Preserve, a County Open Space, is located to the southeast and private land is located to the east and west. The southern part of the project area is the site of the inactive B&B Excavating gravel pit and the former site of the B&B ready mix concrete plant. The floor of the old gravel pit lies about 10 feet above the river valley floor and the pit floor is up to about 60 feet deep along its south side. Several stockpiles and two sediment detention ponds are present on the pit floor (HP Geotech, 2009). See Figure 2. The project site is characterized by the west-flowing Eagle River and its broad, relatively flat floodplain to the north and south which is bordered by small hills to the north and a higher terrace to the south. The elevation of the site ranges from a high of 7,210 feet along U.S. Highway 6 to the south to a low of 7,126 feet where the Eagle River leaves the project site on the west. The small hills to the north are about 60 feet above the valley floor, which ranges in width from 255 on the east end to 2,179 feet on the west end. The 16 acres of disturbed irregular topography of the old B&B gravel mined area is located to the south. The gravel mine disturbance area outside of the project boundary to the southeast, the Eagle River Preserve, has been graded and revegetated and is now used as County Open Space. See Figure 2. 2.0 Existing Environment 2.1 Hydrology 2.1.1 Surface Water The project site is traversed by 3,207 linear feet of the Eagle River (Figure 2). The Eagle River basin upstream of project site covers about 2,900 square miles and heads at an elevation of around 13,500 feet in the Sawatch, Gore and Tenmile Ranges (HP Geotech, 2009). Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch, both intermittent drainages, flow south across the project site in modified channels to the Eagle River. Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch are associated with seasonal groundwater discharge from springs, snowpack melt, and runoff from precipitation events. Beard Creek has a drainage basin that covers about 1,358 acres and heads at an elevation of around 10,200 feet in the area north of the Eagle River. Deadhorse Gulch has a drainage basin that covers about 158 acres and heads at an elevation of around 8,400 feet. Lake Creek flows north to join the Eagle River just west of the west property line. The Eagle River valley floor at the project site is nearly level, ranging in elevation from 7,132 feet on the east end of the project site to 7,126 on the west end, and has a slope of less than 1 percent down to the west. The valley floor lies about four feet above the river and is subject to flooding (HP Geotech, 2009). The U.S. Geological Survey has documented the monthly discharge of the Eagle River for the 2006-2016 time period. The average discharge ranges from a low of 100 cubic feet per second in February to a high of 2,410 in June (USGS, 2017). See Appendix A. Stream flow data is not available for Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch. 2.1.2 Groundwater The Colorado Geological Society (2016) identified the Eagle River as having a major alluvial aquifer. The 100-year floodplain and the floodway boundary of the Eagle River mapped by FEMA generally shows the extent of the alluvial aquifer (Figure 2). During spring runoff, the soils of much of the floodplain of the Eagle River are flooded and areas of the floodplain have shallow ponded water in channels throughout the growing season. 1 In 2009, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (HP Geotech) measured the groundwater elevation on the B&B Excavating property and determined that the groundwater ranged from 11 to 26 feet below the soil surface, or ranged from an elevation of 7,124 feet to 7,120 feet. Terracon Consultants, Inc. (2011) measured the depth to groundwater from eight wells on the former B&B Excavating property in 2011 and determined that the depth to groundwater ranged from 5.14 feet to 9.89 feet below the ground surface. 2.2 Atmospheric Condition The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) provided data on the estimated ambient air concentrations of six air pollutants for the RiverPark project site (Chick, 2017, Table 1). Please note, local air monitoring data do not exist for Edwards, Colorado; therefore, Ms. Chick developed best estimates for the general geographic area using available CDPHE data. The analysis concludes that the estimate levels of particulate matter, lead, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone are below state and federal standards for these pollutants for the area of the project site. For further details, please refer to Ms. Chick's correspondence in Appendix B. The current land uses of the project site do not generate any particulate or gaseous pollutants. Table 1.Ambient Air Concentration Estimates RiverPark Project Site Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Estimate Data Source Particulate Matter Less 24 Hour Second 150 ug/m3 40 ug/m3 Glenwood Springs, Than 10 Microns(PM10) Maximum Feb- Dec 2015 Particulate Matter Less Annual Mean 12.0 ug/m3 5 ug/m3 Glenwood Springs, Than 2.5 Microns(PM2.5) Feb- Dec 2015 24 Hour 98th 35 ug/m3 13 ug/m3 Percentile Lead Rolling 3-Month 0.15 ug/m3 0.006 ug/m3 Denver Municipal Average Animal Shelter, 2009 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Mean 0.053 ppm 0.005 ppm Glenwood Springs, Feb- Dec 2015 1 Hour 98th 0.100 ppm 0.0333 ppm Percentile Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour Second 35 ppm 2 ppm Grand Junction, Maximum 2013-2015 8 Hour Second 9 ppm 1 ppm Maximum Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 99th 0.075 ppm 0.012 ppm RM Steel Print Shop, Percentile Pueblo, 2013-2015 3 Hour Second 0.05 ppm 0.008 ppm Maximum Ozone (03) 8 Hour Fourth 0.070 ppm 0.064 ppm Glenwood Springs, Maximum Feb- Dec 2015 Data provided by Nancy Chick, Environmental Protection Specialist, Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. See Appendix B. 2 2.3 Geology & Hazards 2.3.1 Geology HP Geotech (2009) completed a Geologic Site Assessment for the RiverPark project site and the surrounding area. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geology and determine if there are geologic conditions that could be potentially hazardous or could present major constraints to the proposed development. The information presented below is from the 2009 HP Geotech study. The near surface formation rocks at the project site are the middle Pennsylvanian-age Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite, which are usually covered by man-placed fill and a variety of surficial soil deposits (HP Geotech, 2009). Formation Rock The Eagle Valley Formation (Qc/Pe) and Eagle Valley Evaporite (Qc/Pee) are present around the rim of a 420 acre subsidence feature at the project site and the contact between these two formations is present below the surficial soil deposits at the project site. The Eagle Valley Formation is a translational facies between the mostly evaporite rocks in the Eagle Valley Evaporite and the clastic rocks in the Maroon Formation. The evaporite minerals in the Eagle Valley Formation and the Eagle Valley Evaporite are relatively soluble in circulating groundwater and solution of the evaporite has resulted in the subsidence features and sinkholes (HP Geotech, 2009). The formation rock map units shown on Figure 3 are described below. Eagle Valley Formation (Pe). The Eagle Valley Formation (Pe) is exposed locally in the railroad cuts near the northern property line. At the railroad cut outcrops, the bedding strikes to the northeast and northwest and has dips between 11 and 28 degrees to the northwest and southeast. The Eagle Valley Fromation is described as reddish-brown, reddish-gray, gray, light-green, and tan interbedded shale, claystone, siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone with common distinctive dark- to light-gray, finely crystalline limestone beds usually less than 6 feet thick (Lidke, 1998). Evaporite beds are locally present in the Eagle Valley Formation. Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pee). The Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pee) is present on the valley side to the southwest of the south development area but does not crop out at the project site. It was encountered in the five exploratory borings in the south development area at depths between 2 and 92 feet below the ground surface. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is described as light- to dark- gray and white evaporite sequence consisting mostly of gypsum with interbeds of tan-weathering, light- to dark-grey shale and clayey limestone, tan very fine grained sandstone, and red silty sandstone (Lidke, 1998). Surficial Soils and Landforms Surficial soil deposits and landscape features in the project area are largely associated with cyclic deposition and erosion related to glacial and interglacial climatic fluctuations during the latter part of the Quarternary, about the past 400 thousand years. Relatively large areas of man-disturbed ground related to gravel mining, highway and road construction, and railroad construction are present on the project site (HP Geotech, 2009). The surficial map units described below are shown on Figure 3. Man-Disturbed Ground (af). Gravel mining of the Qt4 and Qt5 terrace alluvium in the B&B pit (af) has substantially modified the natural geomorphic features in the south development area and fill embankments have been constructed across Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch just to the north of the north development area. These fill embankments have modified these two drainages (HP Geotech, 2009). Man-placed fill (af) was encountered in four of the five exploratory borings drilled in the south development area where the fill thickness was between 5 and 16 feet. The fill is variable but 3 typically consists of rounded, gravel- to boulder-size rocks in a clayey to silty sand matrix. In places topsoil is mixed with the fill. In the northern part of the south development area the fill has been pushed out over the subsidence deposits (Qs) and over the Lake Creek alluvial fan (Qal) (HP Geotech, 2009). Subsidence Deposits (Qs). The nearly level Eagle River valley floor between the north and south development areas is underlain by subsidence deposits (Qs). The subsidence deposits are poorly drained and typically have groundwater within a few feet of the ground surface (HP Geotech, 2009). Pedogenetic soil profiles developed in the subsidence deposits are Ag/Cg profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). At the exploratory borings, the subsidence deposits are between 35 and 85 feet thick and overlie the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite. The subsidence deposits have a two tier stratigraphic (HP Geotech, 2009). The upper stratigraphic layer at the borings is from 32 to 57 feet thick. This layer consists of low energy, overbank river sediments that were deposited on the floor of the 420 acre subsidence area as the valley floor slowly subsided. These low energy subsidence deposits are made up of the interstratified silt, clay and sand with many highly organic layers and gravelly and cobbly layers (HP Geotech, 2009). The lower stratigraphic layer at the borings is from 20 to 28 feet thick. This layer consists of high energy river alluvium and represents the initial phase of subsidence of the Qt4 and Qt5 terrace deposits. It is likely that subsidence rates were greater during deposition of the lower stratigraphic layer than the subsidence rates during deposition of the younger upper stratigraphic layer. The lower layer is made up of gravel, cobbles and boulders in a mixed sand and silt matrix (HP Geotech, 2009). Alluvial Fans (Qal Qf). Relatively large alluvial fans (Qfl) at the mouths of Lake Creek, Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch are adjacent to the nearly level valley floor and underlie parts of the north and south development areas. Small alluvial fans (Qf) are present next to the larger Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch alluvial fans in the north development area. In Boring 1, located in the Lake Creek fan, the fan deposit is 21 feet thick and is overlain by 16 feet of man-placed fill. The fan deposit in the boring is underlain by high energy river alluvium. The Lake Creek fan consists of gravel, cobbles and boulders in a silty sand matrix. Borings have not yet been drilled in the Beard Creek, Deadhorse Gulch and smaller fans in the north development area, but these fan deposits are expected to be similar to the Lake Creek fan at Boring 1 (HP Geotech, 2009). The Qal and Qf fans in the project area formed during post-glacial times, about the past 15 thousand years (HP Geotech, 2009). Pedogenetic soil profiles have either not formed on these fans or, if present, consist of A/C, A/Ck and A/Bw/Ck profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). These fans are geologically active and potential sites of future flooding (HP Geotech, 2009). Colluvium (Qc). Colluvium that is probably less than 20 feet thick in most areas usually covers the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite in the north development area. The colluvium consists of angular to rounded rock from gravel-to boulder-size that are supported in a matrix of sand, silt and clay. The colluvium formed during post-glacial times, about the past 15 thousand years (HP Geotech, 2009). Pedogenetic soil profiles have either not formed on the colluvium or, if present, consist of A/C, A/Ck and A/Bw/Ck profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards HP Geotech (2009) identified flooding from the Eagle River and Lake Creek, alluvial fan flooding along Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch, slope instability, subsidence, sinkholes, and earthquakes as potential hazards to the proposed project. 4 Eagle River & Lake Creek Flooding. Figure 2 illustrates the FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain of the Eagle River. Alluvial Fan Flooding. Flash flooding and associated high sediment concentration flows could potentially occur on the Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch alluvial Fan (Qal) and smaller alluvial fans (Qf). Construction-Related Slope Instablility. Considerable grading will probably be needed for the development and geotechnical engineers will need to evaluate the potential for slope instability. Subsidence. The nearly level Eagle River valley is underlain by subsidence deposits (Qs). These deposits are poorly drained and typically have water within a few feet of the ground surface. Most of the project site is located in the eastern part of the 420 acre subsidence feature (Rim Subsidence Areas) that is related to the solution of evaporite along the Eagle River valley. See Figure 3. It is uncertain if subsidence is still occurring at the project site or if subsidence has stopped. If subsidence is occurring, the soil deposits in the subsidence feature indicate that current rates are likely less than the long-term average rates. HP Geotech is not aware of subsidence related problems to existing facilities located in the Edwards area subsidence features (HP Geotech, 2009). Sinkhole Potential. Geologically young sinkholes are locally present in the Edwards area. The closest is located about 170 feet to the south of the southern property line near the original old school house. Others are located to the north in the Cordillera Valley Club area. HP Geotech is not aware of sinkhole development in the Edwards area during historic times, but a few sinkholes in the western Colorado evaporite region are known to have collapsed at the ground surface with little or no warning during historic times (HP Geotech, 2009). This indicates that infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the region. The likelihood that sinkholes will develop during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed project facilities is considered to be low and no greater than elsewhere in the Eagle River valley between Edwards and Eagle-Vail. This inference is based on the large extent of sinkhole prone areas in the western Colorado evaporite region in comparison to the small number of sinkholes that have developed in historic times (HP Geotech, 2009). Earthquakes. Historic earthquakes within 150 miles of the project site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes of M 5.5 or less and maximum Modified Mercalli Intensities of VI or less. The largest historic earthquake in the project region occurred in 1882 (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). It was apparently located in the northern Front Range about 82 miles to the northeast of the project site and had an estimated magnitude of about M 6.2±0.3 and a maximum intensity of VII. Historic ground shaking at the project site associated with the 1882 and the other larger historic earthquakes in the region does not appear to have exceeded Modified Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed buildings and other project facilities, but the probability of a stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction (HP Geotech, 2009). 2.4 Soi Is The USDA Soil Conservation Service (1992) mapped the soils of the project site. As illustrated by Figure 4, there are 10 mapping units on the project site. Each is briefly described below. Map Unit 6. Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes. This deep well-drained soil occurs on 8.9 acres of the alluvial fan on the north end of the property. Map Unit 69. Kilgore silt loam. This deep poorly-drained soil occurs in the alluvial valley floor in the center of the project site. It covers 2.0 acres. 5 Map Unit 92. Redrob loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes. This deep somewhat poorly-drained soil is the major soil type on the project site. It occurs on 56.4 acres of the alluvial valley floor. Map Unit 98. Southace cobbly sandy loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes. This deep, well-drained soil occurs in the northeast corner of the project site on the slopes of an old river terrace. It covers 2.3 acres. Map Unit 104. Torriorthents-Camborthids- Rock Outcrop Complex, 6 to 65 percent slopes. This complex occurs on a south-facing slope of a terrace along the north project site boundary. It covers 1.1 acres. Map Unit 107. Uracca, moist-Mergel Complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, extremely stony. This map unit occurs on the north-facing slope along U.S. Highway 6. It covers 5.7 acres. Map Unit 108. Uracca, moist-Mergel Complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, extremely stony. Most of this map unit has been impacted by the B&B gravel mine operation. This soil originally covered 11.1 acres of the project site. Map Unit 109. Uracca, moist- Mergel Complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes, extremely stony. This map unit occurs on the slope of a terrace along the east property boundary and it covers 3.7 acres. Map Unit 112. Woodhall Gravelly Loam, 6 to 50 percent slopes, extremely stony. This moderately deep well-drained soil occurs along the south side of the Eagle River in the center of the project site. It covers 5.3 acres. Map Unit 20. Water. This map unit generally encompasses the Eagle River and it is 9.1 acres in size. 2.5 Vegetation Resources The vegetation resources including wetlands and upland habitats of the project site were mapped and described by Walsh Environmental Scientists & Engineers, LLC (2009). Figure 5 illustrates the vegetation type mapping units including herbaceous wetlands, riparian wetlands, sagebrush shrublands, and disturbed areas. Each is briefly described below and the acreage of each is listed in Table 2. For further details see the Preliminary Ecological Inventory & Analysis Report (Walsh, 2009a). Please note, the wetland mapping is preliminary and has not been reviewed or approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Table 2. Vegetation Types RiverPark Project Site Vegetation Type Size(acres) Herbaceous Wetland 60 Riparian Wetland 6 Sagebrush Shrublands 15 Disturbed Areas 16 Aquatic Habitat 8 Total 105 2.5.1 Vegetation Types Herbaceous Wetlands. The vegetation of the herbaceous wetland on the floodplain of the Eagle River is a mosaic of herbaceous wetland plants mixed with mesic grass species. Beaked sedge (Carex utricu/ata), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), Baltic rush (/uncus ba/ticus), water sedge (Carex aquati/is), and field horsetail (Equisetum hyema/e) are the dominant wetland species 6 (Walsh, 2009). Less abundant species include timothy (Ph/eum pretense), fowl bluegrass (Poa pa/ustris), redtop (Agrostis a/ba), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensi.s, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vu/gare), which occur in patches along the outer edge of the wetland. Highly saturated and persistently inundated areas are dominated by cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Schoenop/ectus tabernaemontani) with an occasional monotypic patch of arrowhead (Sagittaria/atifo/ia) in depressions near the river (Walsh, 2009a). Riparian Wetlands. The riparian wetland occurs as isolated stands of narrowleaf cottonwood (Popu/us angustifolia), Bebb's willow (Sa/ix bebbiana)or river hawthorn (Crataegus doug/asii ssp. rivu/axis). The willows and hawthorns frequently have an understory of Woods' rose (Rosa woodsia), golden currant (Ribes aureum) and prickly currant (Ribes lacustre). Thinleaf alder (A/nus incana ssp. tenuifo/ia)appears infrequently within swales in the meadows. Sandbar willow (Sa/ix exigua)occurs in scattered patches along the banks of the Eagle River and on cobble bars within the river channel (Walsh, 2009a). Sagebrush Shrublands. The dominant shrub species in the sagebrush shrubland are mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate) and western serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Other shrubs include creeping mahonia (Mahonia repens), mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophi/us), Utah juniper puniperus osteosperma), fringed sage (Artemisia frigida), threeleaf sumac (Rhus trilobata), Woods' rose, and rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus). Herbaceous vegetation includes western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), green needlegrass (Nasse//a viridu/a), prairie junegrass (Koe/eria macrantha), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Sulphur-flowered buckwheat (Erigonum umbellatum), and small-leaf pussytoes (Antennaria parvifolia) (Walsh, 2009a). Disturbed Areas. Disturbed, unvegetated areas are associated with the B&B gravel mine area on the south side of the project site and a parking lot at the end of an access road on the northeast end of the project site. 2.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2017) Information for Planning & Conservation (IPaC) website identified Ute ladies' tresses orchid (Spiranthes d//uvia//s), a threatened plant, as potentially present in the project area. See Appendix C. The Ute ladies' tresses orchid is endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams (USFWS, 1995;Jennings, 1990). In Colorado, the elevational range of known Ute ladies' tresses orchid populations is between 4,528 and 7,753 feet (CNHP, 2017). This orchid prefers sites with permanent sub- irrigation such as floodplains where the water table is near the surface throughout the growing season and into the late summer or early autumn (USFWS, 1995; Jennings, 1990). The orchid frequently colonizes early-successional riparian habitats including point bars, sand bars, and low lying gravelly, sandy, or cobbly edges. These preferred habitat characteristics suggest that this species requires early to mid-seral riparian habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains (USFWS, 1995). This plant has been documented as present in Garfield and Eagle Counties (near Carbondale). No studies have been conducted to determine if this orchid is present on the project site. Harrington penstemon, a species listed as sensitive by the BLM, is a species of concern in Eagle County. This herbaceous perennial plant occurs primarily in open stands of big sagebrush, or less commonly in pinyon-juniper (Pinus edu/is/uniperus scopu/orum) woodlands or mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) shrublands at elevations between 6,800-9,200 feet. Within the sagebrush shrubland, Harrington penstemon is most often observed on windswept ridgetop habitats with an open shrub layer and reduced vegetative cover. There are known populations of Harrington penstemon in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties (Spackman, et al., 1997). There are populations of Harrington penstemon in the Eagle River Valley from Avon. The sagebrush shrubland on the project site provides potential habitat for this plant. No 7 studies have been conducted to determine if this plant is present in the sagebrush habitat of the project site. Willow hawthorn (Crataegussaligna), a species tracked by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), is endemic to Eagle, Rio Blanco, Gunnison, Garfield, Pitkin, and Chafee Counties, Colorado. This small shrub is common along streams and in canyon bottoms and is mostly found in Gunnison and the upper Colorado River basins at elevations between 5,500 and 8,000 feet in elevation (Ackerfield, 2015). No studies have been conducted to determine if this plant is present along the Eagle River on the project site. 2.6 Wildlife Resources 2.6.1 Habitat Types Wildlife habitat types on the project site generally correspond to the vegetation types, including herbaceous wetlands, riparian wetlands, sagebrush shrublands, disturbed areas, and the aquatic habitat of the Eagle River. See Figure 5. All of these habitat types have been altered historically through grazing, gravel mining and other disturbances. The Eagle River floodplain habitats have been highly modified and do not currently provide the structural diversity, trees and shrubs, typically present along large rivers in western Colorado. The following discussion of wildlife resources is from reports prepared by Wildlife Specialties, LLC in 2009 and 2016. 2.6.2 Federally Listed Species The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Information for Planning & Conservation (IPaC) website (2017) identified nine vertebrate wildlife species that have historically or presently occur within Eagle County. Table 3 lists these species and indicates their potential to occur on the project site. However, the project site does not provide habitat for any of the federally listed wildlife species. The CNHP, Colorado's repository for information relating to the State's biological resources, was also contacted to identify historical element occurrences of sensitive species (including state and federally listed species) or habitats within a two mile radius of the project site (CNHP, 2017). No element occurrences or sensitive habitats are found within the project site. However, the Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) was documented in the Eagle River downstream of the project site in 1999. One Potential Conservation Area (PCA), Berry Creek, is located north of the project site. The Berry Creek PCA is unique in that it represents a Colorado River cutthroat trout fishery with a barrier to upstream migration by exotic species of trout. Frye a � 'ilVV *, i ra-" .i^.hY Common Federal Potential for Scientific Name Habitat Requirements Name Status Occurrence Birds Strix occidentalis Mexican FT Rocky canyons or forested Project area does not lucida spotted owl mountains below 2,888 provide suitable habitat. meters (9,500 feet) altitude. Nests in standing snags and hollow trees. Coccyzus Yellow-billed FT Riparian areas dominated Project area does not americanus cuckoo by cottonwoods and provide suitable habitat. willows. Fish Gila elegans Bonytail FE Large rivers associated Found in warmer waters with the Colorado River of the Colorado River basin. generally west of Rifle. 8 4� ;t a4 .r.. 73" y� $b 9 ��3 a Xx � " � # Common Federal Potential for Scientific Name Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Ptychochellus Colorado FE Large rivers associated Found in warmer waters /ucius Pikeminnow with the Colorado River of the Colorado River basin. generally west of Rifle. Gila cypha Humpback FE Large rivers associated Found in warmer waters chub with the Colorado River of the Colorado River basin. generally west of Rifle. Xyrauchen Razorback FE Large rivers associated Found in warmer waters texanus sucker with the Colorado River of the Colorado River; basin. generally west of Rifle. Oncorhynchus Greenback FT Cold, clear, gravely Project area does not clarki stomias cutthroat headwater streams and provide suitable trout mountain lakes free from breeding habitat. introduced salmon id species. Mammals Gulogu/o luscus North PT Alpine &subalpine Project area does not American mature/intermediate provide suitable habitat. Wolverine timbered areas; must be free from human disturbance. Lynx canadensis Canada lynx FT Coniferous forest above Project area does not 8,000 feet in Colorado; provide suitable habitat. requires dense cover for denning. *FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened;PT = Proposed Threatened 2.6.3 State of Colorado Threatened or Endangered Species A review of the Colorado Division of Wildlife Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) and the Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (CPW, 2016) revealed that the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), the river otter (Lontra canadensis) and the bald eagle (Ha/iaeetus leucocepha/us) could potentially occur within the project area's boundaries or nearby. The Northern leopard frog is widely distributed throughout Colorado, occurring from approximately 3,500 feet to 11,000 above mean sea level, with the exception of the eastern most plains and east central portion of the state where they are absent (Hammerson 1999, NDIS 2009). Habitats for the northern leopard frog include wet meadows, banks and shallows of marshes, beaver ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers and irrigation ditches. Although frequently observed at water's edge, northern leopard frogs will move far from permanent water during wet spring weather or when wet vegetation is available (Hammerson 1999). Breeding activity occurs in shallow quiet portions of selected habitats with relatively clear water and ample vegetation for the attachment of egg masses. Potential habitat for the frog occurs within the project area, however, it is unlikely that it is occupied since no known populations exist nearby from which immigration could occur. The River Otter is listed by the State of Colorado as a state threatened species; it is not a federally listed species. State threatened species are provided protection from hunting and trapping (trapping has been outlawed in Colorado). River Otters likely were never a very common species in Colorado and were extirpated from many Colorado river systems during the peak of commercial trapping during the 1830s and 40s. A review of scientific literature shows that River 9 Otters are thriving in Colorado since reintroduction in the 1980s and 90s and now inhabit most major river systems in the state (Armstrong et al., 2011). Research shows that River Otters are capable of existing near humans and will use all aquatic habitats. River Otters are most impacted by recreational use of waters for boating and fishing, but they can and do habituate to these activities. The project area provides little suitable riparian habitat for otters, however it is likely that the River Otter could forage in the Eagle River within the project boundaries. None of the IPaC identified Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern, excluding the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us), have suitable habitat within the project area. CPW mapping shows the project area as the center of a polygon for a Bald Eagle nest site and the project area is mapped as summer and winter foraging habitat. The location of the nest has not been confirmed and the status of the nest(i.e. active, inactive) is unknown. 2.6.4 Raptors A review of the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (Kingery 1998) identified breeding evidence in Eagle County for nine species of raptors. These species include the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), sharpshinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern goshawk (Accipiter genti/is), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), American kestrel (Fa/co sparverius), peregrine falcon (Fa/co peregrinus), and the prairie falcon (Fa/co mexicanus). The northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, and the prairie falcon may use the project site sporadically. However, all of the other species would be expected to use the project area for foraging. Nesting habitat is limited by the general lack of trees. One raptor nest was noted on the project site in 2009 however, because of the timing of the site visit (mid-winter) a determination of what species used the nest was not possible. Raptors including red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and golden eagles do use the project area for hunting. American kestrels likely nest in cavities throughout the project area, and golden eagles and red-tailed hawks likely use the trees by the Eagle River as perch sites. 2.6.5 Game Species and Other Wildlife-Related Issues • Remaining wildlife species are classified into the following four groups: big game, game birds and waterfowl, small game and furbearers. The following sections provide an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for these groups within the project area. Big Game. Big game refers to those large species of wildlife that are economically important because of revenue generated through sport hunting. CPW mapping shows the project area as both Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and Rocky Mountain Elk (Elk - Cervus e/aphus ne/sonii) overall and summer range. Neither of these habitat types are limiting to Mule Deer and Elk distribution. However, the north side of the project area is mapped as Elk winter range. However, the location of the mapped winter range (along 1-70) likely is an artifact of mapping and does not represent usable habitat. Specifically, both the north and south sides of 1-70 are fenced with 8-foot tall wildlife fencing to keep wildlife off 1-70, thus there is no movement of deer, elk, or other big game species onto the project site from occupied habitat to the north. The CPW mapped the entire project area as overall black bear (Ursus amer/canus) range and as a black bear human conflict area. No black bear movement corridors were mapped within the project area, but riparian habitat is regularly used as movement corridors by black bears. The CPW also mapped the entire project area as mountain lion (Fe/is conco/or) overall range and as a mountain lion human conflict area. No mountain lion movement corridors were mapped within the project area, but riparian habitat is regularly used as movement corridors by mountain lions. Game Birds and Waterfowl. The use of the project site by upland game birds is restricted to mourning doves (Zenida macroura). No other upland game species are expected to occur on the 10 project site. Mourning doves have an extremely wide choice of habitats which reflects their adaptability. Habitats dominated by humans were the predominant habitat types identified by atlasers during the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas project (Kingery 1998). Mallard ducks (Anus p/atyrhynchos) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis)were both observed near the project area during the 2009 site visit. Both of these species are wide-ranging and capable of successful reproduction in environments heavily impacted by humans. The project area is used by these species for nesting, resting, and foraging. Other waterfowl species likely occur within the project area as transients during spring and fall migration. Small Game and Furbearers. The only small game species likely to occur on the project site are mountain cottontail rabbits (Sy/vi/agus nutal/i/). The mountain cottontail occurs along brushy areas, but will feed in more open areas if palatable food sources are present. Furbearers historically have been those species hunted and trapped exclusively for their pelts. Often these species are predators, though some rodents (e.g. beavers [Castor canadensis] and muskrats [Ondatra zibethicus]) are also considered furbearers. Common furbearers expected to occur at the project site include raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), coyotes (Canis latrans), and red fox (Vu/pes vu/pes). All of these species can become nuisance wildlife in urban and suburban communities. 2.7 Wastes: Impacted Soils & Groundwater The former B&B Excavating property was located on the project site and it had an asphalt batch plant. Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), on behalf of BWAB Reef Gravel Pit, LLC (BWAB), completed a Phase I Environmental Assessment and then prepared a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) modification (dated May 22, 2009) and a second CAP modification (dated August 10, 2009) for the site to address remediation of petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater associated with the former asphalt batch plant operations per the requirements of the Colorado Hazardous Waste Commission Regulations 6 CCR 1007-3, Part 100, Section 100.26. Figure 2 illustrates the B&B gravel mine disturbance. The summary of site conditions below is from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE, 2011). See Appendix B. The petroleum-based contamination found in soils and ground water at the site was identified during an initial site characterization investigation. The site contamination is believed to have occurred due to historic mining and equipment maintenance practices and improper disposal of petroleum-based contaminants to soils that took place at the site during its operation as a gravel pit. The initial corrective measures taken at the site under the CAP were completed in 2009 and consisted of excavating contaminated soils to either a non-detect level as demonstrated by soil samples taken at the bottom and sides of the excavation, or to the point where ground water was encountered. Excavated soils were then taken to the Eagle County Landfill for disposal and the site was backfilled with clean fill. The site's ground water was then monitored to demonstrate that the contamination had been removed from the subsurface. An initial report on the corrective actions dated December 11, 2009 was submitted to the Department and provided a summary of the initial correctives measures and the first post-cleanup groundwater monitoring event. The Department approved the initial corrective measures/groundwater monitoring event report on March 18, 20 10 with the requirement that additional monitoring be conducted at the site to further demonstrate the success of the soil removal. The reports indicate the majority of the constituents of concern initially identified in ground water and soil in the Corrective Action Plan, namely non-chlorinated volatile organic constituents and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, are no longer detected in groundwater samples obtained from the site. Methyl tert-butyl ether was detected in source area monitoring well MW-14 during three of the post-closure monitoring events. However, all of the detections were at levels below the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety's risk-based screening level of 0.020 mg/I (Underground Storage Tank Regulations, Tier 1 Risk Based 11 Screening Levels,January 2009). Because neither the State's Water Quality Control Commission nor Department have a numeric standard in ground water for Methyl tert-butyl ether, the Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety risk-based screening level for methyl tent-butyl ether was used as clean up criteria for this constituent. Concentrations of dissolved metals in ground water were either below established regulatory standards for ground water (Regulation No. 41, The Basic Standards for Ground Water (5 CCR 1002-41)), or were not reported above laboratory reporting limits during the post-closure monitoring events. Additional parameters measured during the ground water monitoring events such as dissolved oxygen and oxygen reduction potentials were also evaluated. The reports state that dissolved oxygen levels were measured to be at or less than 0.49 mg/1 and oxidation reduction potentials were generally found to be negative, suggesting that anaerobic degradation of petroleum-based contamination is occurring in the subsurface. Trends from the data presented in the reports support the reports' scenario that natural attenuation of remaining low levels of petroleum contamination is occurring at the site and will continue to further degrade these constituents. The reports request based on the data provided that a "No Further Action" determination be made for the site. Based on the information provided in the reports, the Department concluded that the actions described above, namely removal of petroleum-contaminated soils and post-soil removal monitoring for constituents in ground water that may have been associated with the contamination, that were taken to remediate the site appear to have addressed the site's contamination that resulted from improper disposal of petroleum contaminated material. Therefore, as final agency action, the Department hereby approves the reports as submitted and plans to take no further actions with regard to the remediation requirements as defined in the aforementioned CAP, as amended, for this site. Specifically, the Department made a No Further Action Determination. 2.8 Noise & Odors The project site is currently used to graze livestock on the area north of the Eagle River, there are no active land uses on the floodplain south of the Eagle River, and the portion of the project site disturbed by the former B&B mine has no current land uses. The Eagle River, however, is used for rafting, kayaking and fishing. These land uses are the only noise generation sources on the project site. However, the project site is surrounded by 1-70 to the north and U.S. Highway 6 to the south, both of which generate noise from traffic. There are no odor generation sources on the project site. 2.9 Visual Resources Visual amenities of the project site include a broad river valley dominated by attractive herbaceous wetlands with isolated areas of woody vegetation, and small hills to the north covered with a low growing sagebrush community. The landscape on the project site to the south has been scarred by past gravel mining activities and today is unvegetated and unsightly. Surrounding features to the north include the bordering 1-70 and the inactive Union Pacific railroad tracks, the lower shrub-covered mountainous slopes north of 1-70, and the Club at Cordillera Valley golf course to the northwest. Residential areas occur to the south along U.S. Highway 6 and further south, and the undeveloped mountainous slopes of the White River National Forest further to the south are an attractive feature. The area to the southeast is dominated by the Eagle River Preserve, a reclaimed gravel mine area which is now a County Open Space. The Preserve is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and represents a significant improvement from its former condition. 12 The undeveloped area to the immediate northeast includes an attractive forested area along the Eagle River and the big sagebrush dominated slope of a river terrace. The area to the west includes a single family residential neighborhood north of the Eagle River and the attractive undeveloped floodplain of the Eagle River. The project site affords views to the majestic 12,550 foot tall New York Mountain to the south in the White River National Forest. 2.10 Circulation & Transportation Currently, the project site, a private property, can be accessed from U.S. Highway 6 via a gravel road on the southwest corner of the project site and via a County Road on the northeast corner of the project site. 3.0 Proposed Project RiverPark is envisioned as a new residential neighborhood in Edwards, Colorado. See Figure 6. Located within walking distance to shopping and dining in Edwards, the neighborhood sits adjacent to the Eagle River. The river and its adjacent wetlands provide the primary focus of the approximately 550 residential units. There are approximately 385 residential units on the south side of the river including for rent multi-family, for sale multi-family, and shared-wall townhome residences. Larger scale multi- family buildings range in height from 35' to 65'. Parking is accommodated with surface and structured parking lots. A small commercial and retail village creates the community core and gathering place for neighborhood residents. Approximately 30,000 SF of mixed use retail will accommodate neighborhood convenience shopping and a restaurant with a patio overlooking the river and wetland areas. Parking for the retail and commercial space is accommodated by a surface lot shared with adjacent multi-family residential units. A daycare facility is conveniently located near the commercial center. Sidewalks and trails create pedestrian linkage to residences within the neighborhood, and to shopping and dining in Edwards. A system of trails in the open space creates an amenity for residents and links several parks designed into the community. The Neighborhood River Park includes parking, a trailhead, and lawn and allows for controlled fishing access to the Eagle River. The neighborhoods on the north and south side of the river are connected by an iconic bridge over the Eagle River that accommodates vehicular, bike and pedestrian traffic. The neighborhoods north of the river consist of approximately 220 units including affordable, deed restricted multi- family for rent apartments, townhomes and 24 single family lots. Additional civic uses on the north side of the river include a K-8 school and associated uses, a chapel, and an amphitheater adjacent to the Eagle River. An alternative plan for the north side of the river replaces the proposed civic uses with 29 additional single family lots. Uses on the north side of the river are linked with sidewalks. A trail system through the open space adjacent to the Eagle River creates an amenity for residents. Transit stops on the north and south side of the river accommodate public transportation. 13 4.0 Impacts & Mitigation 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Surface Water The Eagle River can likely be spanned by the proposed bridge, thus it will not be impacted by the bridge abutments or supporting structures in the river. Culverts will be used for the two road crossings of Deadhorse Gulch. A small ornamental pond would be created on Beard Creek just north of the single family lots. Approximatedly 150 linear feet of Beard Creek will be piped under a parking lot and the north-most circulation road. A culvert would be used to convey flows of Beard Creek under the south-most circulation road. See Figure 6. Please note, the project will likely have detention ponds for stormwater runoff from the developed landscapes of the project site. These detention ponds would enhance water quality and they would not impact the flow in the Eagle River as the release rate would be matched to the historic undeveloped flow from the project site. 4.1.2 Groundwater Structures located in developments on the edge of the alluvial valley floor, including single family homes, apartments/condos, a chapel and a school on the north side of the Eagle River, and apartments/condos on the south side of the Eagle River would be located in an area that potentially has a high groundwater table. Geotechnical studies would likely be needed to determine if groundwater would be encountered by the foundations for buildings in these areas. If groundwater is present, mitigation would be required. Below-grade structures such as retaining walls, crawlspaces, and any basement areas would need to be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. 4.2 Atmospheric Condition The proposed development would have a small and immeasurable impact on air quality. There would be a short-term increase in hydrocarbon pollutants and dust during the construction process. With development, there would be small releases of hydrocarbon pollutants generated by activities such as heating the development. The traffic study determined that that RiverPark project would generate 6,800 vehicle trips on a daily basis. These vehicle trips would increase the levels of hydrocarbon pollutants. The magnitude of the impact on air quality has not been estimate, but it would likely be small and immeasurable. 4.3 Geology & Hazards HP GeoTech (2009) states that there are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered as project planning and design proceeds. These conditions, their potential risks to the proposed development, additional studies to further evaluate the potential risks, and possible mitigations to reduce the risks are discussed below. Foundation bearing conditions and other geotechnical engineering considerations are presented in the preliminary geotechnical report (HP Geotech, 2009). 4.3.1 Eagle River and Lake Creek Flooding As illustrated by Figure 6, the single family homes, some of the townhouses, the school and athletic field, part of the chapel, and the amphitheater on the north side of the Eagle River, as well as some of the Lifestyle Apartments on the southwest, would be located within the 100 year floodplain of the Eagle River. Fill material would be used to elevate the structures above the 100 year floodplain. However, engineering studies will be needed to determine the effect of the fill material placed in the 100 year floodplain on downstream flooding along the Eagle River. 14 4.3.2 Alluvial Fan Flooding The project drainage and storm water management plan should evaluate flash flooding and associated high sediment concentration flows on the Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch alluvial fans (Qal) and the smaller alluvial fans (Qf) in the north development area. Flash floods on these fans, in addition to containing mud and rock debris, will likely include brush, logs and other organic debris that have the potential to plug small diameter culverts and subsurface storm drains designed for clear water floods. This potential for plugging should be considered in the design of drainage facilities on these fans. If the culverts in the roads and 1-70 embankment fills upstream of the project site were to plug, these embankments would function as debris storage basins. The project drainage and storm water management plan should evaluate whether there is sufficient debris storage volume upstream of these embankments to prevent overtopping by the project design flood (HP Geotech, 2009). 4.3.3 Construction Related Slope Instability Considerable grading will probably be needed for the proposed development. To reduce the potential for construction related slope instability it is important that the proposed grading be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. Preliminary recommendations for site grading are presented in the HP Geotech preliminary geotechnical report(2009). 4.3.4 Ground Subsidence The potential subsidence risks to buildings and other movement sensitive facilities located in the 420 acre subsidence feature appear to be low, but development in this area cannot be considered totally risk free. Project planning strategies that may be used to reduce the potential subsidence risks would be to: (1) locate the larger buildings outside of the 420 acres subsidence feature and (2) only locate small buildings on rigid mat foundations in the subsidence feature (HP Geotech, 2009). 4.3.5 Sinkhole Potential Because of the complex nature of the evaporite related sinkholes, it will not be possible to avoid all sinkhole risk to the proposed development, but risk can be reduced by building site specific studies. The potential for shallow subsurface voids below building and other movement sensitive facility areas should be evaluated as part of subsurface exploration for foundation design. If conditions indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include: (1) stabilization by grouting, (2) stabilization by excavation and backfilling, (3) a deep foundation system, (4) structural bridging, or(5) a mat foundation system (HP Geotech, 2009). 4.3.6 Earthquake Considerations The project facilities should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. 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 Maps indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.05g has a 10% exceedance probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.16g has a 2% exceedance probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. The soil profiles at the project site should be considered as Class D, stiff soil sites as described in the 2006 International Building Code unless site specific shear wave velocity studies show otherwise (HP Geotech, 2009). The earthquake related liquefaction potential at the south development area was evaluated by the Simplified Seed analysis. This analysis indicated that the soil profile at the south development area does not have a liquefaction potential for the 500-year peak ground acceleration of 0.05g. The liquefaction potential at the north development area should be evaluated when borings have been drilled in that area (HP Geotech, 2009). 15 4.4 Soils The proposed development would impact approximately 53 acres of soils, as summarized by Table 4. North of the Eagle River, the major soil impact would be to Map Unit 92 Redrob loam. The project also impacts the Almy loam (6.0 acres), the Southace cobbly sandy loam (3.0 acres), and the Torriorthents-camorthids-rock outcrop complex(3.0 acres). The major soil type impacted south of the river is the Uracca, moist-Mengel complex (Map Units 107, 108 & 109). The project would impact 21.5 acres of this soil complex. However, it should be noted that 17 acres of Map Unit 108 were previously impacted by the B&B gravel mine. Approximately 1.5 acres of the Redrob loam located around the edge of the disturbed mine area would also be impacted. It is recommended that topsoil of the proposed impact areas be salvaged and used for areas that are to be landscaped. Table 4. Estimated Soil Impact* RiverPark Project Soil Type Impact(acres) North of Eagle River 6. Almy Loam, 1012% slopes 6.0 92. Redrob Loam, 1-6% slopes 18.0 98. Southace Cobbly Sandy Loam, 12-25% slopes 3.0 104. Torriorthents-Camorthids-Rock Outcrop Complex, 6-65% slopes 3.0 Subtotal 30.0 South of Eagle River 92. Redrob Loam, 1-6% slopes 1.5 107. Uracca, moist-Mergel Complex, 1-6% slopes 3.5 108. Uracca, moist-Merge! Complex, 6-12% slopes 16.0 109. Uracca, moist-Mergel Complex, 12-25% slopes 2.0 Subtotal 23.0 Grand Total 53.0 *Please note, the Soils Map as illustrated by Figure 4 is very general and does not correlate well with the site topography. 4.5 Vegetation Resources 4.5.1 Vegetation Types Based upon the current preliminary wetland and vegetation type mapping, the project would impact 37 acres of vegetation and 16 acres of an existing disturbance. See Table 5. Vegetation types impacted include 21.7 acres of herbaceous wetlands, 0.3 acres of riparian wetlands, and 15 acres of sagebrush shrublands. See Figures 2 and 6. Table 5. Estimated Vegetation Type Impact RiverPark Project Vegetation Type Impact(acres) Herbaceous Wetland 21.7 Riparian Wetland 0.3 Sagebrush Shrubland 15.0 16 Table 5. Estimated Vegetation Type Impact RiverPark Project Vegetation Type Impact(acres) Disturbed Areas 16.0 Total 53.0 The proposed project would require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the wetland impacts. Since the wetland impacts would be greater than one-half acre, an Individual Permit would be required. It is recommended that wetlands on the project site be delineated in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Regional Supplement (2008), and the delineation be submitted to the Corps for their review and approval. Following approval of the wetland delineation, the impact of the project on wetlands should be re-calculated. Next, avoidance and minimization procedures and alternatives to reduce the wetland impact should be thoroughly evaluated. It should be noted that any impacts to wetlands must be mitigated by the creation of new wetlands to replace the lost wetland functions. If there is not sufficient space on the project site to mitigate the project's wetland impact, the purchase of wetland credit in a wetland mitigation bank would be an option. It is recommended that native herbaceous, shrub and tree species be incorporated into the landscape of the project where feasible. 4.5.2 Federally Listed & Plant Species of Concern Ute ladies'tresses orchid, a federally listed threatened plant, and two species of concern including Harrington penstemon and willow hawthorn could potentially occur on the project site. Although no specific studies have been conducted for these plants, ecologists working on the project site have not encountered these species. However, it is recommended that the upland vegetation types be mapped and described, and site-specific surveys be conducted for these plants during the appropriate times. If species of concern are found, the impact of the project on these species should be evaluated and mitigation measures should be developed for any impacts. 4.6 Wildlife Resources The primary impact associated with the proposed development is direct habitat loss, as documented by Table 5 above. However, the habitats that would be lost are degraded by current and past land uses and do not presently provide much value to wildlife. Secondary impacts, usually in the form of avoidance of habitats because of human presence or activity, are not expected to be an issue. Specifically, the location of the project area (surrounded by disturbances) and the current land use practices have resulted in the use of the project area by species which are more tolerant of disturbance. Impacts and associated mitigation, as necessary, are discussed in the following sections. 4.6.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species No impacts to species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA will result from the implementation of the proposed project. 4.6.2 State of Colorado Threatened or Endangered Species There have been no surveys to document the presence/absence of River Otters, Northern Leopard Frogs and Bald Eagles. It is recommended that surveys for these species be conducted in 2017, and if present, the potential impacts of the project on the species should be evaluated and mitigation measures should be developed for any impacts. if the survey documents that a Bald Eagle nest is located within the project area, coordination with the USFWS Migratory Birds Office will be necessary to determine what actions can occur and when these actions can occur. The CPW recommends a one-mile buffer of active Bald Eagle nests. 17 4.6.3 Raptors Development of the project area is not expected to have a negative impact on local raptors. Any raptors that use the site as individuals are likely tolerant of human activity. Since the majority of the project area with potential habitat for raptors, the broad valley bottom, will not be developed, impacts to raptors will likely be non-existent. However, the project site and adjacent areas should be surveyed during the 2017 nesting season to determine raptor use of the nest identified in 2009 and to determine if other raptor nests have been established since 2009. If active raptor nests occur on or near the project site, the impact of the project on raptors should be evaluated and if necessary, mitigation measures should be developed. 4.6.4 Big Game Since riparian habitat impacts would be limited (0.3 acres), impacts to big game species would be minimal. The Eagle River could be used as a movement corridor for black bears and mountain lions; as such there could be a greater chance for human/wildlife conflict post development. Therefore, all trash receptacles must be bear proof to reduce human-bear conflicts. It should be noted that the 1-70 corridor and the paralleling wildlife fence essentially prevents access to the sagebrush habitat on the north end of the project site by big game. Any fencing that is built within or along the project boundaries should be wildlife friendly and comply with CPW guidelines. A fence does not need to be more than 106 cm (42 inches) high, and the bottom wire or board should be no lower than 40.6 cm (16 inches). If fences are constructed exclusively of post and pole, CPW recommends a maximum of three rails with a spacing Of 40.6 cm between each rail. A post, pole and wire fence can have three wires and a top rail, as long as the bottom wire is not less than 40.6 cm above ground surface and the rail does not exceed 106 cm. Buck and pole fences are popular because of their ease of construction, however, these fences are very difficult for wildlife to get through or over; therefore this type of fence is not recommended, unless there are adequate breaks for wildlife crossing. No additional mitigation is necessary or warranted. 4.6.5 Game Birds and Waterfowl Approximately 44 acres of wetlands and 8 acres of aquatic habitat of the Eagle River, the habitats of gamebirds and waterfowl, would not be impacted by development of the project area and would be used as open space. Therefore, impacts to these species would be minimal. Covenants to control impacts to wildlife from human subsidized predators (cats and dogs) should include a prohibition on outdoor cats (to protect nesting birds) and allowing only dogs on leashes and fenced dog runs. It is recommended that dogs not be allowed near nesting habitat or the Eagle River, unless on a leash at all times to reduce stress on nesting waterfowl. 4.6.6 Small Game and Furbearers Current habitat conditions in conjunction with the disturbed nature of the site limit the usability of the project area to small game and furbearers. Impacts to small game and furbearers are expected to be minimal. In some instances furbearers (i.e. coyotes and raccoons) will increase around human activity centers and they can become problematic. No mitigation is necessary. 4.7 Wastes The proposed project would not impact any petroleum waste products on the old B&B gravel mine areas because the Department (CDPHE) has determined that the Corrective Action Plan successfully removed contaminated soils from the project site, and the concentration of dissolved metals in the groundwater are below regulatory standards. 18 4.8 Noise & Odors The proposed development would generate a short-term increase in noise levels due to heavy equipment use during the construction process. When construction is complete, the project would generate approximately 6,800 vehicle trips per day, and noise would be generated at the single family and high density buildings, on the school playground, on the athletic field during sporting events, and at the amphitheater during cultural events. Considering the ambient noise surrounding the project site from 1-70, U.S. Highway 6 and the adjacent neighborhoods, the added impact of the noise generated by the project following construction would likely be negligible. 4.9 Visual Resources • The design of the proposed RiverPark Community has been inspired by historic riverfront communities of the Rocky Mountain West. It would have a cohesive timeless mountain architectural style with earth-tone colors which would blend with the natural palette of the seasons. Each of the neighborhoods would have an architectural character that responds to its diverse natural surroundings. Brick, stone, steel and timber would be used in the Village Center and Lifestyle Apartments, and the small-scale intimate neighborhoods would have porch-style, stone and timber accents. See Figure 6. The neighborhood north of the Eagle River would be surrounded by open space and landscape reminiscent of the Great American West. The neighborhood will exemplify that spirit and character through the use of open living spaces, outdoor living, and the use of natural materials, colors and territorial western architecture. Properties would be sited to coexist with the natural topography and landscape, taking full advantage of the existing waterways. The neighborhoods south of the Eagle River, tucked well below and out of sight of the hustle and bustle of U.S. Highway 6, would be a collection of riverfront townhome residences ranging from two to four bedrooms, lofts reminiscent of LODO and apartment living. Historic lanterns, manicured landscaping and pedestrian lifestyle would be the focus of this uniquely branded residential neighborhood. These neighborhoods would have a natural mountain coloration and character of territorial style timber and stone structures with deepened overhangs and attention to details of simple iconic mountain structures and their connection to the landscape. The Village Center would stand as a testament to timeless Western Mountain architecture. Casual and inviting storefronts and covered porches would line the landscaped brick plaza lit by gas lanterns and overhead bulbs reminiscent of historically significant shopping areas such as Larimer Square in Denver, Aspen Mall and Pearl Street Mall in Boulder. The buildings would be an eclectic mix of yesterday and today-reflective of a simpler time in life. 4.10 Circulation & Transportation The project site would be accessed via a proposed round-a-bout at the intersection of Lake Creek Road and U.S. Highway 6. See Figure 6. This access road would extend north and east, cross the Eagle River on a proposed bridge, and then extend west to Lake Creek Village Drive in the Lake Creek Villa apartments to provide a secondary access. To determine the long-term effects of the proposed development, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig (2016) completed a traffic study (trip generation) in 2009 and updated the study in 2016. As indicated by Table 6, the proposed RiverPark project would generate about 6,800 trips on a daily basis,with about 850 in the AM and about 850 in the PM, per hour. 19 ITE . Trip Generation...: Land Use Size Units AM AM AM PM PM PM Code Daily 1n Out Total In Out Total Single Family 25 DU 210 238 5 14 19 16 9 25 Apartments 330 DU 220 2194 34 134 168 133 72 205 Townhomes 208 DU 230 1208 16 76 92 72 36 108 Charter School 400 Students 536 992 198 126 324 29 39 68 Church 28 KSF 560 255 10 6 16 7 8 15 Day Care 20 KSF 565 1480 129 115 244 116 131 247 Office 5 KSF 710 55 7 1 8 6 1 7 Retail 10 KSF 820 427 6 4 10 18 19 37 Restaurant 10 KSF 932 1272 59 49 108 59 40 99 Unadjusted Total Trips 8121 464 525 989 451 360 811 Internal Vehicle Trips 1085 54 59 113 75 61 136 External Transit Trips 244 14 16 30 13 11 24 External Vehicle Trips 6792 396 450 846 363 288 651 *From the December 1,2016 Felsberg, Holt&Ullevig Trip Generation Comparison, RiverPark,FHU Reference No. 116361-01 5.0 Cumulative & Long-term Effects and Irreversible Environmental Changes 5.1 Hydrology 5.1.1 Surface Water The proposed project would have a small cumulative and long-term irreversible environmental change to Deadhorse Gulch. It is estimated that approximately 90 feet of Deadhorse Gulch would be placed in a culvert at two road crossings. Approximately 200 linear of Beard Creek would be piped and a pond would be created on Beard Creek. These changes represent a cumulative and long-term effect. 5.1.2 Groundwater The proposed development would have a slight cumulative long-term effect or irreversible change to groundwater hydrology of the project site if dewatering of foundation drains of buildings are located in areas of the Eagle River valley that have a near-surface alluvial aquifer. 5.2 Atmospheric Condition The increase in hydrocarbon pollutants generated by the development represents a cumulative, long-term effect. 5.3 Geology & Hazards Further engineering studies and design features can minimize long-term risks associated with flooding, slope instability, sinkhole potential, and earthquakes. 5.4 Soils The proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 36 acres of native soils and impact 17 acres of the B&B gravel mine where the native soils were previously disturbed and lost. The loss of these soils represents a cumulative and long-term effect and environmental change. 20 5.5 Vegetation Resources The proposed project, based on the existing preliminary wetland and upland vegetation type mapping, would permanently impact 37 acres of vegetation, including 22 acres of wetlands and 15 acres of sagebrush shrubland. The Corps will require mitigation for the wetland impacts. However, the loss of these vegetation resources is a cumulative and long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. The Corps would require that project impacts to wetlands be mitigated. If populations of the federally listed Ute ladies' tresses orchid were to be documented as present on the project site, the project would be designed to avoid impacts, and thus there would be no • cumulative long-term effect to this plant. If populations of the two sensitive plants were documented as present on the project site, and impacts could not be avoided, there would be a cumulative long-term impact to these plants. 5.6 Wildlife Resources The loss of 37 acres of native vegetation represents a cumulative, long-term and irreversible environmental change. The project area does not provide habitat for federally listed species. Thus, there will be no long-term or cumulative impacts to any of these species as a result of project implementation. It is recommended that surveys for the River Otter, Northern Leopard Frog and Bald Eagle be conducted in 2017 to determine the likelihood of use of the project and if use is determined then appropriate mitigation measures will be necessary. If any of these species are present, mitigation should be developed to reduce impacts and thus avoid cumulative long- term effects. Similarly, it is also recommended that the site be surveyed for active raptor nests. If active raptor nests are present, mitigation should be developed to reduce impacts. Development of the project site will not have great impacts on wildlife or habitats necessary for a species survival. The location of the project makes this a prime location for development while not impacting habitat. Adherence to the prescribed actions herein will ensure that wildlife and humans will be able to co-exist with minimal conflict. 5.7 Wastes There would be no cumulative and long-term effects and irreversible changes as no petroleum impacted soils remain on the project site. 5.8 Noise & Odors The noise generated by the construction and occupancy of the proposed development would create a slight cumulative and long-term effect and irreversible environmental change. 5.9 Visual Resources The RiverPark development would have a cumulative, long-term and irreversible environmental impact on the visual resources of the area. Approximately 37 acres of native landscape and 17 acres of the B&B gravel mine disturbance would be replaced with a new attractive community that would blend with the adjacent neighborhoods. 5.10 Circulation & Transportation The traffic generated by the proposed development, an estimated 6,800 trips per day, represents a cumulative and long-term effect and irreversible change to the existing traffic condition. 21 6.0 Figures 22 W 106°36'0"W 106°37'0' z i i1 illiV f, 7rfll J>f ifirit- l l" - ./r, Anil F ,-.::: , i :- 74 41147 — q � t :. n'� : r'`ish 4.1 :;r';',.;'-' t ' ,,, ..'," ,,,:,it ,, .,,,,— ,,„A . —I s : z )'‘t::,' Ayr :;. .. Y4 -,1::,' ,.. 'fir Iiiiiit1t• �/ � ' �+ % ., '.. 'itillt.4 dui a�r✓. ,„0 '..: * fir^ i+ i ., � If 0 'fit tt,, illy' +.' , ..».:.. s 4 x� ...5 1, 144t. l�+',+.-"""..., 5* f - y":11e IMn.^ ♦.. e. .OYMn igP, Eagle River zeziiirt x ;;IP.;‘''..-..zi.:1.0011,-. .. 1.114.. , .4.12i..-:,i,,,, ,:;,,,,,„.„_,,,,,_, ,..,.. . ,,,,,::.,. •,f q o 41110 :9,3 ..::- -. .. 4%, -.1,Litir AP gm te.-, f5: cl,"lr';;.'''',.:'". `,:. r. * -: -'- v4IIPPr*^I . „w - , lit/7...,.- ': ';,','`.7..--1,... ,-,7-',7.-,.,.., . .... -''.‘11016' iii40.111 ‘ Ntaliti\., . litLii rr , �' Project Site* i U.S. Highway 6 ' / ft- - ,i ..,'5.t.,- ti , #( ., • . ‘ N\\, .1., ,<;,,s1:_,:7 -\70 ' f; ,i,' `.0.... i •' , -.44Ruikk, ., . ., : .. :k.I't - , rT411111.,"--`1,...''''.* v7:7,:l ,. ._ . ., ,,... wisiii ,, , . ,rt I . cc, 1 a a ,.. . . ,., ir, , • _ i rof iross.,„ . _ , ir1/4.t.„,,.;,,,,..„,.,. ., , .. .... ‘1.014...4, '' ' 14 - ,, , ...,.,. .. 'ilk: 01-4; Mj 4 Z Aip r00i c Go c i tit: 013 ,e.°ra i ocie.y,�=,used.. ;' M 106°37'0"W 106°36'0"W M BASE: USGS 7.5' Edwards, Colorado Quadrangle Figure 1. Project Location Map RiverPark Hr N _ _ Map Location prepared by: Western Ecological Resource,Inc. 711 Walnut Street COLORADO Boulder,CO80302 tt Scale 1:24,000 (303)449-9009 mailcwestemeco.com 23 .a.,k:e^nFr,wu,�.' 106°36'0"W 1-70 sUnion Pacific Railroad Tracks are Inactive Deadhorse Gulch • Beard Creek 100-Year Floodplain , i Eagle River M Lake f4 �. ; co a�t -i c co Creek `�, , co '' 100-Year Floodplain 114.124., .„,-,,,,,,,,..,i: -: , - . ",, ray 9 h 404.:...,:),:, ,_ B&B Gravel Mine Disturbance r1 i « y � Eagle River ‘ ; Preserve U.S. Highway 6 ; 7,-- IP tArI 4jA IL fkirli. P.i `.+ .ram giX j 1trO,,c t1� ., J t '0 O c i Legend 106°36'0'W Figure 2. Existing Conditions Parcel Boundary RiverPark Streams N prepared by: FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Western Ecological Resource,Inc. 711 Walnut Street Floodwa Scale 1:6 500 Boulder,C080302 0Y Boundary (303)449-9009 mail@westerneco.corn 24 Al 4e le ee, .0. .- V i • / , ,f 4,1,k.N1" 1 ' ' i 44,, , !II , ,!/ „ ,,,,,, ,.., ,„:-."=.0 r ' ,, '"" ' * 1 ''t /1,, ..,t"S""'‹ n 4 I 1 " 7 .............2 Z off / / /i / -FijvIrvi f ,st--,14,01/1/1 ex' - _ 112 . i „,,,,,/-nk, i ..'"'"•::t 4.,^4> , ,-- .,.- a I 1 4',f . . ' Ill te • . y kt'.-i, , ' : I , L t,,,,„ i ....stovv,44;i r, r, .., ..,,,.1 a,4,', • . . II 1 1/„/ • i 1//,' k'•';..e•.:•'::i' 1\ 8 / ', „....-_,•:5 4,. ._.in 4 \\OP/ .06 1 /.1 1. = -.1 in • -. 0 11 1:i le ill" II . i ,..„, „ . icf,:„0,0 ,or / ) i lk 2 *4' nth rV', ,IV a . : , _,4.4.64villisi i gi is • i i ey" ,,, ~ 'i 1 ' "A 0 IAt, ' A/if: , al *31 0 . .... "1 i .'• 0 (- , .4 . ":,,, if - ,,,.-:.,v : b ill , , - - :: : LS' , ,,,,,,,,, P i ii i . 1 g i 11 L.*.° 14 • ''''...7:,-1;'..•:17^.'-';11; . 15 ll I ' Ce 1> I III r, III 11; .... .... ; II) . In • A' El .1 /I/ to i 1 .. li \,„, • 4 \ . if 41' Ill .,"--., - i 1 . \ II , , ,, '.. ' • .. a• 4? lg .t...t. 8 1 - - , , - 11111 ,„ . , •:- „,..iih..- • ' k '''r!.'W-f:''' 2=.1: li ,.. ,_ ' ,• ' ., i...a 41 ... 4$01Wil t . , - 1 a 11.• la ' (1117 ...... [ ': ':( ' 0•61,.., --;, g i #.,.„ .1.$.4..t. ...' 8 I (I — Zi fi • Figure 3. Geology Map I (..,\ 1 GateCh RiverPark 25 " 1 mi.oet 4ECTEDINICAL i R • R fi mains . tom', mmxv mmaa mms somas on. a.. Miss,mi - ; co N 47 N • 9 8 . . 1 *q ii pp -: j . ' >' 1 ape , j .r 0. W gg O & M V1 , "E 4 . . k. . r, tit :',4 ; a Nm irirtkrt'il.:''' ':!'.--'..' a2 ro 6$'e ! . "fit ' a a n f?, s } IEEE i k tVO.>m .';€ :,fir - r ! ' ommdm ? S J F �, V�� . YS .N".NH N . " 4. ; - C000CR M22— L N s I molt • { - �U U O m -70 Ot`t�OAOm VI-OONO rn `S ., 4 J may., j} OOOO�N W A- p i O �{ ' o. r 1m O N E. E4 '. N_m.,p in _ a o U 1 m it J 03 NI i� E. _I .LO. TOO c EYatq man u n ,::y. J co fO0 W OOi q Q y37( • � �g K ,,4 ,, F r• Y� 7 pp Y M rN Are+ 3.1 - .$' r' � -' Q `� OL Ft ` `fir M.159E eNi Im®maabOOSEinMa5.9 ,M m0O Vm@D 8 e 1 . . .. = ,.. o u 0 2 c ca 0) N in (a .2 2° ,Ta("I a) cri —,, .4 i•ji o ...,E-•? II >4 c 2 :-• Fr 111 i ,_ . .. .. _.. a.e C 2 L' 40 't• 0 a) a) (1)—'- •T1 1 8 ._ 0, e LL t. hi .... . . a) 6 0 To I f 1 ! l'i a- -0 c 2 0 it > a.3 .- . o r, E o iii c 0 0)w (a .c. w , a) iij`0 ci CO .7 i 0 > 7-1 CO co .1-• -a) o >it 0) (i'. CO E co in Li.' o a) z 2 :1 ..ri -0 mi a.) 2 m..7 0 0 cS r71 2 1 g (0 .. , .:. 0- . , L.,-,J • -`-x- CO ---------- - - 1 it . . --- ------------- ls i CV .42 ' - o . o > , ..,, .iff., .4 ,,,, .1=4 LT. cTs ,-,./ l'ii7,,a,'..,',;4..,s, ,:,:'/44 ,---4- :,,-,:*:,..::;:-*""-:-•,,, -,- .,.',.., c -,.:; ;'''/..,;;,?>%;* .' /"P,' `i.'';,' .4", # ', t+++',,,,-- :i:::„.: u - -.--.,... ::,..,--,,,-,0 ..., ,..."-! +' 4• 4-,-,+'4 +,'t . ::::: , , ta= .2 , ,,,..-11r.v;, - . . + 4 41 * '4•4 > ''' ' i',ii + 4 40.4."1 im.,5'."4? • ::, f"' 4 * 11 7--- ., - ++++ ,--3" - ,' ''k\ :.:.i: ++++ CL _v 3 0 c C.) ii PP, ', '.4r:; '''' '' '; , , • 'irs Wi-k.'+4 0 0 112 ?..i.L.;:r . ...,..4 4 . . ,,,,---,',::'' * -,-,:H: •: :,i,i,.: + + + + t77 C > 40 .E IT/A /'1,7-- ' ..41fai3e:„...,.+7..,':::,,,---., ' , ' , .0, ‘,.„...,.i.,-:j.,,-.,..----::.:, i --..: .., + + + cu e 4,.,,i',. ..1 -:•:::, ' - 1 - `./.„ + / 6. 0 a , ::i:i::i:ii . ++++ co 2 ,Att ',' ri?,?":414:-: ''' ' " " .4>o/ .... 4 \..., , , - , ii' :• 4 ki + /' +'-'- - ` - ' ' ' ' ii : $ , . „,,---e-,/ " ski,++.*-e'' ff + if.::::::i:ii:::::4 4'::_„.,„„,,5#,4.• .- V; 1: , , . ,. ,, 4, - " - ' * •-.: :: .‘W'.. . S:4 ,Aftk.,,:',,,,, ,,4 :.: •::::::::::::::•,, /1'1''''''-'3'•,4.4-- • "''' *v+ ' * • ' ' ' * —' ' . ' • ' .• .:: ii::ii':]ii? - ' !!cr':%;." .-,..",„ „.:,,,',4 4,,',., .',... :4:!4. - . • * . ' ' — „ > :':-':,1Vi,-, 1 •,.P!...'!,,k ;','f',..'.,' ,:4- ,4. 4 i . 4 , • 4 -• • " , , 1 ,7,;i'ir '4'!"(;' 4''''' '4- '' ' " ' ' ' '' '' ' '.: '::' . ''' • ,_ ..,,,.;#0 •.,i*i:i'..4.,, N , ,, . IS,%.., 114'1 " . . '' ' I 11 .4%V411k**40''\'''':'''''''''--'" --,:,, o. ,,,, '4,.'4.,•+ , , .., „,, , „ , , , .> ,,. + :. '-.k 4 iiiiii,• ,*. • -t...„,,..t ::.,,,,....:,,,-....---:,,a,-,:,,,,,„ „... .., 4,-...,, 1. -,.. , , ,, :.•:::,„: . dola- ,:.,,, ,:'' „ , 4 S'i'1/4t'" , .,/i....--,ii. , -. , • A ..:, t *' — „ „ , :.„ . ].i, ii,.„ . . ,,-,*-..... . ,'N..),.. Nok fk, f..44!'" '.4,..„‘,:,-Nil,, 1 gi (4) 1:1,,f, 4,1. .41.,..' ..' • ''' /' . „ ,, , •1 . + .:,', ' '16,,,Y ' ' ill it 4„, ',.kr!,; ' -'• *,,,,- -- -' '- ''' +. :-: 'if:i4 :, ' , ' . ' .., ' .\ "*.•*••••7.:!.',..,--. . '... 1,-,!.',•:,- ... /.qii :,/, - ,,41.4, 7,100.'" ,41:-...„;•::„.. ...,,,....;:i.i.0),k .. , :,. ./.'.iiill!...t.'4 i '.,r ,,, ..+.. f.‘„.,.,.. . " . , . ,•, ,, ' 4 $0. •"- • •.,t. '' + " , , . . - . --....... ;'I. :,', '+.,: ,.4. ', " ' . . , •. s . i. . ki:i:.:ii::,•s. • ' " ' ' ' **t.".440L ...g,,140.0'..-_-..., =. -.,?:I;1 ,•, ',,,i .,,,,,,. ,,,,1+, 41: ,+,4., , . • • ,, 4 , iy:•:i]ii::-...41 , • , . " \'' . ' V.-14•4114114,%ak.fitialq,q4,444114‘40;::1-. , .'. ,::::' :: ::it, 4 4 • - ' ' , , wo.likt.4v.„,..1 -IN 440 .1,,„, .+ -P4 4 '., - " ' ' "',*--- '' ,,,•*.i:]i::. i ::..‘• •• , "., 1 : ' • )•-,,...'it..,A.,;,,.‘.,A Ztt:-.iillik ,,..iY,',i'.i. ,....4 -I. ." ., . 4 ' . . :•,,, 4 - • • ' ' \" '' ; 4'A.'•‘•471,',."4,14. 4/"..44141'144414400, i,:i.",;4 ...„ ,,..... 4111kisk,,,,,,.. >,•I'iiH.:::'Isiii6.*:; i'? , „ . .--,\,,,,e.„..:44,-•,,,,ez*,‘14:::,,.',,, . :',.,v'','' '4 4, : ,\ , „ — ; 4\1;v;.-.;'"...i.".4,144,144.s71-6.,‘4%.* 4::.....;.,.' I V, A ' .‘'s.,,,4•,' + ''' • , . ., , ' . ' ' s Z.':] i '**. :i'. ':'< r.- . , N''. ...1‘4,,,+it4,41%,„ k:,, •ts',:4,.,",:• !;. ',,„,,,:,.. 't , ,,,+:4.4,,+-4... _ -, „, , . • • • - >''i.:i: ii:.!i'i'ii. ' _ — \ • [V,„,.4... . 4414`,' ,1,... -7.1CON'-4' r;1717. 17,-i":",; " ,;'''...,.. . V,4-",....„: --.- ., . • . ,, - 4 ,.! , i•k, ..:i :. 'i-m.:]]:. 1 . ,, , . „ , , '.„ ,', Nr:,44.4,41,4, 4,.,44ittkr,,,, ,trflitik.!tilki,',.:: :; . , '* '..' 'p, ,, - , • ; , 4 , '1 yii]. ;ii: Oi ,; :,„ • f ., •-,. +. '4' •.N.74:1/4. ,,. ,b7.,F..i'!.,.;. 0 ,,,\,4,.+,. '.,4 ' . • . 4 ‘'-;' ' , '; '-‘, ':ii:1 : i ::' '' . ‘,.:4ct-,. ....=-Nvkt.44,1141J,NWrati,..4;,:.,,-ii , ii.,i,,,,i,,H:-..,,,,,.,,,, ...-..- ------- ., ,. ,.,,, ,.--...,,ivz,,,,as:'t.k-lxvil,74.' , ‘1, ,_+.-..,.... :,..2., ,.,iilvili11112,:, ..-: , „,. . ,, , + ,,, .\ , :,tz.:,....,k,,, . : ......., ,,,,...44,‘,..",,:,.,:„,,i," ,,,Iii,./Lif,I.,,:, „4„,,,,,, lkftott.„ Ite,..,..\ ) c t•:.•:•::::::::. N, , ,.;,+ , , ::;:! i:: ;,,, ' .,. . ° . . . . . . ., .4..4.-. s . ,...,:,:,.,, ', . - 4 t . • 4 " • ''.\ '', " i4LISN/11%,,i.. ',4 '' ' •" t.'..-.. '+' - - - — !'iigiiii'. ' ' ' ' . , — , • , .. - ik .-%7aolf.i-•,,,i'd'..,, .;. -.1.4.:,./i0,,p .,,, , ..'',+. „ — .. . , * iatiz%.-# ti -i., r7 !..,.,..' i& ' . \' ',..* th%,,A4,41%41..., 4'.Y1' - ,,, 0 •,' •: :4,,. '' '' ' ,11,, N.,_II<Atib,.•:;,i4' ....- '''' '4. 4 ' ' ' \'. #40, ,,,i11,',.!4,,..:L111%,114.)A4%.14.4.,;,/,'f' '-^':: fr' ,'''':. : ::::: 1. 'ilV'. '7 ' ' ..' . ' . ....4 ' 4' ' ''' ' *. '.4 I''' A' bi‘ 7'f...44IV:1‘.7:1-4447ft.14411:1 ;41'4.'!: ''' '?:::' ,,' ' V1 - .. ': i '' '''''li,i(Vi,;*44-4.40*.;'Z'',NT,'i, ' ''' ' .:'' '!' * ' ' l'ii :::iii]i 4 4 '• . ,.' ' ' ' ' '` . ' rni'.* '''''''',4%41:kOtkaie 1 A miL _..._ . . .,; 1 .. ...... 444 7.0 References Ackerfield,J. 2015. The Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press, Ft. Worth, Texas. 818p. Armstrong, D.M., Fitzgerald,J.P., and C.A. Meaney. 2011. Mammals of Colorado. 2nd Ed., Denver Mus. Nat. Hist. and Univ. Press of Colorado. Niwot, CO. 620 pp. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2011. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Final Agency Action — No Further Action Determination. Review of Groundwater Monitoring Reports, First Quarter 2010 and Second Quarter 2011, Former B&B Excavating Property. October 28, 2011. Chick, N. 2017. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Background Estimates for Air Pollution, Eagle River Meadows. February 2, 2017. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Biodiversity. Tracking and Conservation System. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/tracking/vascular.html Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW). 2016. Species Profiles and State of Colorado List of Threatened and Endangered Species: http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx and http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangered List.aspx Colorado Geological Survey. 2016. Groundwater Atlas of Colorado. Chapter 5 Major Alluvial Aquifers: 5.3 Colorado River Basin. Accessed January 2017. Available at: http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/water/groundwater-atlas/ Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2016. Trip Generation Comparison, RiverPark, Reference No. 1 1 6361-01. Prepared for Jeff Townsend, Resort Concepts, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, Centennial, Colorado. December 1, 2016. Frankel, A.D. and Others. 2002. Documentation of the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open Field Report 20-420. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles of Colorado. Second Edition. Univeristy Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 482 pp. HP Geotech. 2009. Geologic Site Assessment, Proposed Eagle River Meadows, Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road Near Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado. job No. 109 028A. Prepared for Lance Badger, The Atira Group, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical. March 31, 2009. Jennings, William F. 1990. Final Report. Species studied: Spiranthes di/uvia/is, Sisyrinchium pa//idum. Report for the Nature Conservancy under the Colorado Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. Kingery, H.E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. H. E. Kingery, ed. Published by Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Kirkham, R.M. and Rogers, W.P. 1985. Colorado Earthquake Data and Interpretations 1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46. Lidke, D.J. 1998. Geology map of the Wolcott Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey map 1-2656. 28 National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2008. Soil Survey of the Aspen-Gypsum Area, Parts of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin Counties, Colorado:Version 5. June 9, 2008. Spackman, S., et al. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Terracon. 2011. Groundwater Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2011, Former B&B Excavating Property, 33415 Highway 6, Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado. Project No. 25117050. Prepared for Eagle River Meadows, LLC, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc.,Wheat Ridge, Colorado. July 21, 2011. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Soil Survey of the Aspen-Gypsum Area, Parts of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin Counties, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Official Species List, River Park (B&B Gravel Pit). Consultation Code: 06E24100-2017-SLI-0156. February 3, 2017. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/H 6MMXAI 7U B HM30PJC30ZS2G NEA/resources U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes di/uvia/is) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. Surface-Water Monthly Statistics. Eagle River Below Milk Creek Near Wolcott, CO. Accessed January 30, 2017. Available online at: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly/?referred_module=sw&site_no=394220106431 500&por_394220106431500 20307=363245,00060,20307,2006-04,2016- 10&format=htm(_table&date__format=YYYY-MM- D D&rdb_compression=file&subm itted_form=parameter_selection_list Walsh. 2009. Eagle River Meadows Preliminary Ecological Inventory and Impact Analysis Report. Prepared for Lance Badger, The Atira Group, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC, Boulder, Colorado. March 9, 2009. Walsh. 2009. Draft Eagle River Meadows Wetland Action Plan. Prepared for Lance Badger, The Atira Group, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC, Boulder, Colorado. October 14, 2009. Wildlife Specialties. 2009. Wildlife Habitat Assessment, B&B Gravel Pit Project, Eagle County, Colorado. Prepared for The Atira Group, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Wildlife Specialties, LLC, Lyons, Colorado. March 2009. Wildlife Specialties. 2016. Eagle River Meadows — Update of 2009 Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Jeff Townsend, Resort Concepts, Edwards, Colorado. Prepared by Wildlife Specialties, LLC, Lyons, Colorado. December 2, 2016. 29 Appendix A. USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics for the Eagle River 1/30/2017 USGS Surface Water data for USA:USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics or- sGs USGS Home Contact USGS science fur clranylrrq/0.arid Search USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface USGS Water Resources Data cateaory __ _._, Geo _ Surface Water • ; United States • GO Click forNews Bulletins USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics for the Nation The statistics generated from this site are based on approved daily-mean data and may not match those published by the USGS in official publications. The user is responsible for assessment and use of statistics from this site. For more details on why the statistics may not match, click here. USGS 394220106431500 EAGLE RIVER BELOW MILK CREEK NEAR WOLCOTT, CO Available data for this site Time-series: Monthly statistics • I GO l Eagle County, Colorado Output formats Hydrologic Unit Code 14010003 HTML table of all data Latitude 39°42'18", Longitude 106°43'33" NAD83 Drainage area 600 square miles Tab-separated data Gage datum 6,820 feet above NGVD29 Reselect output format 00060, Discharge, cubic feet per second, YEAR Monthly mean in ft3/s (Calculation Period: 2006-05-01 -> 2016-09-30) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 1,874 1,791 549.5 203.5 184.2 249.2 151.2 148.2 2007 124.6 122.2 187.3 352.8 1,436 1,566 479.1 252.4 193.4 190.4 137.2 101.1 2008 93.9 102.0 106.9 278.0 1,596 3,379 1,415 441.6 185.0 152.8 137.4 122.7 2009 113.6 104.9 144.4 391.8 2,219 2,430 967.6 261.7 143.6 152.4 121.0 86.1 2010 85.6 84.4 88.3 331.5 1,198 2,661 508.2 283.1 119.3 131.9 135.4 115.7 2011 110.7 105.3 142.5 306.2 1,097 4,095 2,563 488.0 252.4 189.5 145.0 111.6 2012 117.1 108.6 145.0 395.4 735.3 493.3 218.5 149.7 109.5 101.2 81.6 63.6 2013 64.0 67.5 76.5 144.4 1,154 1,777 399.5 173.7 263.8 219.1 151.4 103.0 2014 92.3 92.3 114.8 531.8 1,729 2,769 794.5 288.9 232.5 232.2 152.8 123.9 2015 115.6 114.7 184.6 361.5 983.4 2,848 844.4 217.4 158.8 127.2 117.8 97.2 2016 93.1 98.5 119.2 274.2 1,127 2,744 616.7 206.1 135.9 Mean of monthly 101 100 131 337 1,380 2,410 851 270 180 175 133 107 Discharge A-1 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly/?referred_module=sw&site_no=394220106431500&por_394220106431500 20307=363245,00060,20307,2006-04,2016-... 1/2 • 1/30/2017 USGS Surface Water data for USA:USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics ** No Incomplete data have been used for statistical calculation Questions about sites/data? Feedback on this web site Automated retrievals Help Data Tips Explanation of terms Subscribe for system changes News Ac.:ass bihty rOIA Privacy Policies a ci 3 iicec U.S. Department of the Interior I U.S. Geological Survey Title: Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics URL: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly? Page Contact Information: Colorado Water Data Support Team Page Last Modified: 2017-01-30 13:59:05 EST 0.5 0.43 vaww02 A-2 hops://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly/?referred module=sw&site no=394220106431500&por 394220106431500 20307=363245,00060,20307,2006-04,2016-... 2/2 Appendix B. Correspondence from CDPHE STATE OF COLOFADO John W.Hickenlooper,Governor Larry Wolk,MD,MSPH 7.6F-co4\ Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer yam/ %\ Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado (* 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Services Division 1876 / Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928 Colorado Department Located in Glendale,Colorado (303)692-3090 of Public Health www.colorado.gov/cdphe and Environment David Johnson By email: mail@westerneco.com February 2, 2017 Dear Mr. Johnson, You recently requested background estimates for air pollution in the area of the following project: Eagle River Meadows Environmental Impact Assess. County: Eagle Latitude: NAD83: 39.650800 AND/OR NAD27 Longitude: -106.605500 The estimates, and their bases, are given below. Pollutant Standard Standard Estimated Concentration Basis for Estimate CO requested? Yes CO 1 Hour Second Maximum(ppm) 35 2 Grand Junction,2013-2015. CO 8 Hour Second Maximum(ppm) 9 1 03 requested? Yes 03 8 Hour Fourth Maximum(ppm) 0.070 0.064 Glenwood Springs,Feb-Dec 2015. SO2 requested? Yes SO2 1 Hour 99th Percentile 0.075 0.012 RM Steel Print Shop,Pueblo,2013-2015. SO2 3 Hour Second Maximum(ppm) 0.05 0.008 (Secondary Standard) NO2 requested?) Yes NO2 Annual Mean(ppm) 0.053 0.005 Glenwood Springs,Feb-Dec 2015. NO2 1 Hour 98th Percentile(ppm) 0.100 0.033 PM10 requested? Yes PM10 24 Hour Second Maximum(ug/m3) 150 40 Glenwood Springs,Feb-Dec 2015. PM2.5 requested? Yes PM2.5 Annual Mean(ug/m3) 12.0 5 Glenwood Springs,Feb-Dec 2015. PM2.5 24 Hour 98th Percentile(ug/m3) 35 13 Pb requested? Yes Pb Rolling 3-Month Average(ug/m3) 0.15 0.006 Denver Municipal Animal Shelter,2009. B-1 Any ozone concentrations provided here are for informational purposes only. They are not for use in modeling. Ozone concentrations for use in modeling (AERMOD/OLM)should be requested separately. Upon request, refinement of a single value background concentration listed above may be conducted by the modeling staff(email: emmett.malone@state.co.us), if applicable,appropriate, and justified. These estimates are derived from ambient monitored concentrations that are available to the Division to represent background levels(added to the impacts of the project emissions and emissions from other nearby sources) in cumulative ambient air impacts for comparison to the NAAQS. They are not suitable for applications beyond that scope of use. The quantity of data is sometimes limited and may be of uncertain quality. The ambient background concentrations- 1. Do not necessarily substitute for on-site monitoring data; i.e.,for permitting actions subject to PSD rules, pre-construction monitoring may be required. 2. Indicate the ambient levels in general geographic areas, not a specific location. This is particularly true for particulate concentration values. 3.Are subject to change without notice as new information is acquired. Use of these background estimates should be accompanied by an appropriate citation that indicates their source and their limitations. Referencing this letter would be adequate, but an expanded explanation is suggested. If you have questions, I can be reached at 303-692-3226, or email: nancy.chick@state.co.us. Sincerely, Nancy D.Chick Environmental Protection Specialist Air Pollution Control Division C:\background concentration\request no. 125 B-2 Appendix C. IPaC Resource List 4-'4'-' r,\ United States Department of the Interior 4 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE • "1, Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office CAM 445 WEST GUNNISON AVENUE,SUITE 240 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81501 PHONE:(970)243-2778 FAX:(970)245-6933 URL:www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/; www.fws.gov/platteriver/ Consultation Code: 06E24100-2017-SLI-0156 February 03,2017 Event Code: 06E24100-2017-E-00311 Project Name: River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered,proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)under section 7(c)of the Endangered Species Act(Act) of 1973, as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions,or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations(50 CFR 402 et seq.),Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. C-1 A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects(or other undertakings having similar physical impacts)that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities,the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines,based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species,proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally,wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers(e.g., cellular, digital television,radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment 2 C-2 'M• r, United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 4t, _ Y,� s.,a6!i` Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) SIN r� �x s:i Official Species List Provided by: Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 WEST GUNNISON AVENUE,SUITE 240 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81501 (970)243-2778 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/ http://www.fws.gov/platteriver/ Consultation Code: 06E24100-2017-SLI-0156 Event Code: 06E24100-2017-E-00311 Project Type: DEVELOPMENT Project Name: River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Project Description: Community development-residential and some retail units. Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches,the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM 1 C-3 �,,,"4a, , \ ' United States Department of Interior y rimFish and Wildlife Service 44,,„,,,," k`> .:y Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Project Location Map: � r c:c �r Eeisr cx ANY { M tn4. * - Jv.. .x Y * 40,, f Edi, cs s Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON(((-106.60411283927414 39.646984569439915, - 106.60765490874115 39.64754187078841, -106.60830943918994 39.64780097147452, - 106.60856710259644 39.647855699121415, -106.60857552957647 39.648869941219, - 106.60842691629087 39.64896527409371, -106.60838928419088 39.65319811832709, - 106.60902257625236 39.65318934496287, -106.60834756129144 39.65335026696143, - 106.6083459402458 39.653280333686205, -106.60705351624922 39.65348477582242, - 106.60509144884364 39.654083218255366, -106.60405237220756 39.65415587271706, - 106.60293009093607 39.65389154698896, -106.60212285213962 39.65355290839494, - 106.59951137604477 39.65215481560112, -106.5999608513156 39.65006160865998, - 106.60058820290682 39.649796458687625, -106.60163879958907 39.64957210577282, - 106.60255261876216 39.64865007289426, -106.60330487491487 39.64856973338997, - 106.60339372054163 39.647845629929144, -106.60407246648515 39.64784791557565, - 106.60411283927414 39.646984569439915))) http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM 2 C-4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service •,„z„,,,e�° ',Nylon" Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Project Counties: Eagle, CO http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM 3 C-5 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Endangered Species Act Species List There are a total of 10 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area.For example,certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s) Mexican Spotted owl(Strix Threatened Final designated occidentalis lucida) Population:Wherever found Yellow-Billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus Threatened Proposed americanus) Population:Western U.S.DPS • Fishes Bonytail chub(Gila elegans) Endangered Final designated Population:Wherever found Colorado pikeminnow(Ptychocheilus Endangered Final designated Lucius) • Population:Wherever found,except where listed as an experimental population Greenback Cutthroat trout Threatened (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) Population:Wherever found Humpback chub(Gila cypha) Endangered Final designated Population:Wherever found http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM 4 C-6 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service "1/4,„,,a�" " s Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Razorback sucker(Xyrauchen Endangered Final designated texanus) Population:Wherever found Flowering Plants Ute ladies'-tresses(Spiranthes Threatened diluvialis) Population:Wherever found Mammals Canada Lynx(Lynx canadensis) Threatened Final designated Population:Contiguous U.S.DPS North American wolverine(Gulo gulo Proposed luscus) Threatened Population:Wherever found http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM 5 C-7 I United States Department of Interior rAiFish and Wildlife Service r 4 Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM 6 C-8 United States Department of Interior 1111 Sl Fish and Wildlife Service *-kc.$,4:Po Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Appendix A: FWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries There are no refuges or fish hatcheries within your project area. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM-Appendix A 1 C-9 ��aEk £e Py�cL United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service • Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Appendix B: FWS Migratory Birds The protection of birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(BGEPA). Any activity,intentional or unintentional,resulting in take of migratory birds,including eagles,is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(50 C.F.R.Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C.Sec.668(a)). The MBTA has no otherwise lawful activities.For more information regarding these Acts see: http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagl e-protection-act.php All project proponents are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations protecting birds when planning and developing a project. To meet these conservation obligations,proponents should identify potential or existing project-related impacts to migratory birds and their habitat and develop and implement conservation measures that avoid,minimize,or compensate for these impacts. The Service's Birds of Conservation Concern(2008)report identifies species,subspecies,and populations of all migratory nongame birds that,without additional conservation actions,are likely to become listed under the Endangered Species Act as amended(16 U.S.0 1531 et seq.). For information about Birds of Conservation Concern,go to: http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/man aged-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php For information about conservation measures that help avoid or minimize impacts to birds,please visit: http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/proj ect-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php To search and view summaries of year-round bird occurrence data within your project area,go to the Avian Knowledge Network Histogram Tools at: http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tool s-and-guidance/akn-histogram-tools.php http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM-Appendix B 1 C-10 �t�eHr crt Ts United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Migratory birds that may be affected by your project: There are 26 birds on your migratory bird list. The list may include birds occurring outside this FWS office jurisdiction. Species Name Bird of Seasonal Occurrence in Project Area Conservation Concern(BCC) American bittern(Botaurus lentiginosus) Yes Breeding Bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Yes Year-round Black Rosy-Finch(Leucosticte atrata) Yes Year-round Brewer's Sparrow(Spizella breweri) Yes Breeding Brown-capped Rosy-Finch(Leucosticte Yes Wintering australis) Burrowing Owl(Athene cunicularia) Yes Breeding Cassin's Finch(Carpodacus cassinii) Yes Year-round Ferruginous hawk(Buteo regal is) Yes Wintering Fox Sparrow(Passerella liaca) Yes Breeding Golden eagle(Aquila chrysaetos) Yes Year-round Greater sage-grouse(Centrocercus Yes Year-round urophasianus) Juniper Titmouse(Baeolophus ridgwayi) Yes Year-round Lewis's Woodpecker(Melanerpes Lewis) Yes Breeding Loggerhead Shrike(Lanius ludovicianus) Yes Breeding Long-Billed curlew(Numenius Yes Breeding americanus) http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM-Appendix B 2 C-11 United States Department of Interior •' - `g Fish and Wildlife Service 444,,1py4 '`,, Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Olive-Sided flycatcher(Contopus Yes Breeding cooper?) Peregrine Falcon(Falco peregrinus) Yes Breeding Pinyon Jay(Gymnorhinus Yes Year-round cyanocephalus) Prairie Falcon(Falco mexicanus) Yes Year-round Sage Thrasher(Oreoscoptes montanus) Yes Breeding Short-eared Owl(Asio flammeus) Yes Wintering Swainson's hawk(Buteo swainsoni) Yes Breeding Veery(Catharus fuscescens) Yes Breeding Western grebe(aechmophorus Yes Breeding occidental is) Williamson's Sapsucker(Sphyrapicus Yes Breeding thyroideus) Willow Flycatcher(Empidonax traillii) Yes Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM-Appendix B 3 c-i 2 " United States Department of Interior rillFish and Wildlife Service Project name:River Park(B&B Gravel Pit) Appendix C: NWI Wetlands Wetlands data for your project area was not available at the time of this species list request. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac,02/03/2017 09:20 AM-Appendix C 1 C-13 ad Q L co t d V ei C 0. .yam. c o m n F R d E m m P o `�° E ii ` o = v © m-m 4s° O.'O N B "o s 2_1 0 co m 2 >m LL LLydQa 's{'#g 0 LL . N > O U 6§ R '' y C C y 3 w a uW -- 7 it cu 01 Lc_ J , 4 IL r — i a i - e i L . !f - . P - �' '_ 'y ,.' . ,e -V. _ -i z ' III �8m � , : rt-r': 4A ' rr`Y ,, 1' ` .�;", '. (4ti . ;li -"'i' r. 4 - - ` III �V '. _ ian -8 I 1 s tXy I x7 6h � a r� a - f,,, ▪"''Sli. I I e �I •ru f�f • I y t } 1 l- l ! 3"J • 1 'R ,zi. f • 1 1 : ' �;• '- o k nr '- D , _ �u'itj 3 ,,3 ICI Y 4 --4 .>.V`. ,r Z m • r - .�ryi rf ' '. J e J Eagle County, Co 201820293 Regina O'Brien 11/27/2018 PgS: 7 04:39:38 PM REC: $0.00 DOC:$0.00 #8 - Referenced Utilized, for Cesare, Inc. Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment Letter, May 04, 2019. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE,STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.2018- n l RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDWARDS RIVER PARK SKETCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.PDS-6738 WHEREAS, on or about March 17, 2017, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, accepted for filing an application (Eagle County File No. PDS-6738) submitted by Sierra Trails Investment (hereinafter the "Applicant") seeking a Sketch Plan approval for the Edwards River Park Planned Unit Development and, WHEREAS, variations to standards and dimensional limitations were proposed in the PUD Guide and are attached at Exhibit A, WHEREAS, notice of the requested Sketch Plan was mailed to all owners of property located within and adjacent to the subject property and was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the County concerning the subject matter of the application and setting forth the dates and times of hearings for consideration of the application by the Eagle County Planning Commission(hereinafter the"Planning Commission")and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle(hereinafter the"Board")as required by Section 5-210.E, Eagle County Land Use Regulations(hereinafter"ECLURs")—Notice of Public Hearings;and, WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on October 4, 2017 the Planning Commission, based upon its findings,voted to recommend approval of the Sketch Plan,with conditions; and, WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on December 19, 2017 the Board considered the proposed Sketch Plan, the statements and concerns of the Applicant, the Eagle County Planning Department, other interested persons and the recommendation of the Planning Commission and voted unanimously to approve the Sketch Plan with the conditions listed herein, and authorized the Chair to sign on its behalf the foregoing resolution evidencing such approval;and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence,testimony, exhibits,and study of the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of Eagle County, the Edwards Area Community Plan, as well as comments of the Eagle County Community Development Department, comments of public officials and agencies, the recommendation of the Planning Commission,and comments from all interested parties,the Board found as follows: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board. • 2. That pursuant to ECLURs Section 5-240.F.3.e - Sketch Plan for PUD for the review of a PUD Sketch Plan,all standards required for Sketch Plan have been met. 3. That pursuant to ECLURs Section 5-240.F.3.f- Variations Authorized all standards required for variations to standards and dimensional limitations have been met and the Board hereby approves the variations set forth in the PUD Guide attached hereto as Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: THAT the Sketch Plan described herein is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. For purposes of calculation of,the fee-in-lieu of school land dedication, the determination of land value is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the County's Land Use Regulations and the land valuation and amount of the school land dedication shall be determined prior to or as a part of the final plat process for Edwards River Park PUD; 2. Upon required application for PUD Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall obtain an Ability to Serve letter from Eagle River Water and Sanitation District; 3. Upon required application for PUD Preliminary Plan,the Applicant shall obtain a CDOT Access Permit and will be responsible for construction of all necessary improvements; 4. Upon required application for PUD Preliminary Plan,the Applicant shall obtain a 404 permit from the US Army Corp of Engineers for any wetlands impacts; 5. Upon required application for PUD Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall address geologic hazards for full buildout of the development; and 6. Upon required application for PUD Preliminary Plan,the Applicant shall submit a proposed PUD Guide in an acceptable form, format and version to the Community Development Department(as part of such required application). 2 7. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all agreements and material representations made by the Applicant with this application and their public presentation shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval; THAT,the Board directs the Planning Department to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant. THAT,the Board hereby finds,determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the health,safety and welfare of the citizens of Eagle County. ADOPTED by the Board of County,ommissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado,by and through its Chair the ?9 day of 4 y44141m 1 ,2018,nunc pro tunc to the 19th day of December,2017. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO,By and Through Its BOARD OF owe coy COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ° 's tia BY: .1'nn . •.R� BY: Regina O'Brien Kath Chandler-Henry,Chair Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion to approve the Sketch Plan for the Fields Subdivision. The roll was called and the vote was as follows: Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry aye Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney aye Commissioner Jillian H.Ryan aye 3 Approval of the application for the Sketch Plan for the Edwards River Park Sketch Plan for PUD passed by 3-0 vote of the Board of County Commissioner of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 4 o t Tv W y O c G A C C W y C IS F. H 0 ro to .. t 8 o c 7,5 A C .E E 0J pp A v .t+ 1,! N u c c y Y e c A N Y £ c° > E a` A w c `e m E E c oo ao jr. 01 > MALE aoi aE E9 v '� d m y C A 10 v al.t. m C ` E c g$ o > o, 3 m •. > o E. m a ' A 2 D W 00 c V L m a C• C �Ol„ C '° C W J A d A O A N 3 y N u o c E v v u C C a m n a C . m. a m E F V o. A .�:o C c c A . 2 a el A a 7ei o a E c ,u S.oa v E A ,a, �i d w gal Y y-6 V O O Y Y Y • A CO A ✓ A A A T a pp n ? N''a ; C O ' C .. T u 0 Z. C p C p - C : A C - A C ✓c EA ° Eiow E > a Eio. E > a aaa) .a a ` -a� °o aA � am °o 8 ea IT, 00/ > a °1 > c --La 2 cw c c La w a, ar 1 a a t bp v a L , a) y o eo a, a o r o y o 00 t ar c v c y c r y c L y c f. 7 ~ 3 r 7 • 7 0 7 r 7 ~' w i 7 . , G7 a A N -O A N A N A N A 1L. m d - a N E d a � `5' a m E v 'Na E 3 v es AS 7 N d _ 7 N d ._ 7 d - 7 'O y '-^ 7 a ` E .,-, y 7 a07.. = a/ 7 a01+ 7 w N « V N .. C 'N 2 L t 'V1 yL L t 'N L N t N 7 N V ',,, L N y L N H y y N N ` L N wa 2 L N ` }�N N 2 C 'h N FFFL-" C N N a C .. N C L N r C t N O• s a a z a 'a a a Ti 6 A I • y {7 / E N N Y -C N N A L p0� '0 A �a '� cc g A L A A A -N �a 12- W OC W K W K W OC W CC S O N O OW O N ea C.-1 YC CY CY a a a a a a a a a a -1 i cc 4 ▪ v ✓ To7 7 J j a � � A N N N N E. ,, NE v Ee m Eva �.p iDu G c � C � o ea C • C 0 = JCC O p a ` 'o J A O W q C Wx K ~ A a W ad a D O a,, NN M W 0 N N N e'••-• A O ea c N U C V C a°i u' 3 ` a ° o c ° a 7 a 7 0,0 a c X O. g °° E N E N E 9 C -o A A C C 7 o1 f0 ea Y 8 C o C 8 • O aJ o £ ea 4. c E 1 N 1 1p awl a) o, 10 'O y v :Si v o `A N c z c v '.. E c w m o x vai a a. a s Z > A V .E al a V1 C < S a. N m ei ,-1 N N N M r^ .1 .1 N NI er LA 0. k� �� - o. o }\\) / . C kk ` $ 2 k . % ; 2 ta§ƒ ,) t ƒ gE C. �N.)\/ a �al 41 � ©a k k _ - ;§// 7 _ _ _ 2 /> \\\}} \ \ \ \ § /} at § Kg7 _ _ 41 4 « -# \ d $ Bakmto() 2 2 - 27i 2 £ @ 2 z z ■ kEt ) ) ) _ ) m & kk i f - _ a 7 . & f { f ( § § 3 <. 2 ■ ■ -Ti 2 - J ( $ 2 � as ¥ ¥ \ � t 2 # \ \ ea k ƒ / / \ k FE 2 \ \ \ \ a. . {)k7t Imo - ...... \ k 7t \§ A2 /` ! § ■� � k � k d $ � ) .. � - _q » � ) • - _ . § & % 63 _ �22 £ a , ; � § § % ) 70 . _ e o90 . 2 ¥ t .c & a _ $ � � o � � 2a ® « 2a �= , = um k \ %\ l7 . fk ) /� ) � / k ) k=k � � k � � ) ƒ.0.cEE k / k U. ` �7« � 2u,0 S00 .0I 1.4 07 00o .0)—0 = rve � Ear ± ° % �� / � � ra GJ & % . r � � 12 \a 2 f •/ .. § \ $ § II - 40. \\ in - m a m a .0 C C C o a a a a a a o) 13Si 2' 2'aJ N a to a a C 7 C C C E -E -E 7 N 00 d a O. a` a` .c.' ‘a E m I; m ?a m •- t w ? o '0 v ry V j W W W C A N ` d d c GC ao E ar ellw o SI .0 8 E r • • a+ a) a) ar v v a v C7 1..7 4.7 (7 •o - v v Is c c c c to a a a a) a) a) a) > > > > • m to io a t `a a r`a to z z z z 0 0 0 0 > > > 0. O. a a a a) a, ar ar L -c .c -c 2 O N O 2 w al w w a! N N a! cc cc cc cc a a a a N Y Y a ` `v • v v o s a m m a A a CO 0. a s W C W K W CC W C • N N N as a C s C C a:' a =o 'o N a a a ri a a a a a' o ° ` m am °C 0 u . 0 et 13 O o c Jt c CJ Cg L c C UV o e A Um ., B o ,N ° u o o en a c ow 7 .N ' 'Cu) N ouW N 1 M 7 7, 'fM -a C4 _OCN C .E •ti •pCEER t E $ m E ENm E N Ly E vM H tX O :a NMOJNMOm OHoJ O as H O 7 F O 2 m m C_ a 0 o - 3 a I- N e-1 N i illitit .gg itilik g g o o WAN J Z Q °�ii 89gg stw'4r f- "� @ 111/1 1i3 i.. (C3 T f r.f:-. AY: V t. 'P < (Q ram, \ aig,. ,; N Z .'sue c ,' e i /i z /V/�) L.i. j f •;-,n/.f y 4 i d . ` — i •` \\w4, M 7^., ems k� a) n�?+h. - :ate P .4 r "� :., P.F.. e .." - , -e.0 t',. -- ' ' - ' • .', '' ' '*...:r li,' II te t i t i J ),t Y *�'— a Illi ; II b...me 4 t ) y� Sr`s zs7f_. y i 1 ` \s / '41 / JJ t �f \ Jy h vR. mule'} ' I .,. Exhibit C Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table 20 a o E a t 8 o a eNM1r 31 a ❑o i: a` �P82 a3 '7 �� v a g _ g 3 ga tall 1g 3 aS �Yi ° Ilia y 3a �� '- o ga nEe9a a 8 .,: `� ��°. c �'� a e0 y`d=E Z "83�3 1 29- p.y',,,S n 'C . .�Z a 2 C '2 u°A a l a G .0 3 g E 'C 2 a 4 o x;l�`FFi. e 5 3 $ �' N' 'n a`0 3 v t.$ N _ '�— a e 9 1.121 ,:&s n W. n sE .. ?sg28q W Tm vtRIg a Si a`4 5 5 x a a 5 x '6 s ,.2 m� o.� h m oo y mx 'c sago°. y mx° eAEg � wm i"a� 2 .N 0Op Ep. 11 111 t2 3 W og 4 20 4 o4- a 3a H E e i s e i 1 0, d g 2; omc< c o .2 ° - o 3 v v ;a N o ° tl E. aE ru A t ' -a m Ey - 34 gg5 • cE E a °° s $ SE 13 v' 2 V S E ! 3U i E: a2g s RE a pa =t to .ESE 1 g 3EE. g as 1,, " a Eas s a E 11r8 a -4 B A ya i a a ~" ,: E 'hA 22g E S lig = ;dig. ,ig f o t 3a. ;Bs - 3gz Z8E o g!-- �i ee m m o a d S°E E !I a 121 EE E $ 4 111 5 :dA e :C'e aoA.� eEa 'E3e;a ESS3 o2a..aa2 v-n k, d- Ea &'ga Eav lae, --� �_° E&a842E 12"1 i €tg �s �Ok I eoi aay11114 �oa eta yElgliaa w',1 y.V' a'B oe Gguo 84's w YCEm 4.2 W0,Gy3t,4.5l cEc°F MI 15 e9a = $04 - era ce°ge5� ePd =e 08. 02 '"2 5" .w.g1� as m- age �'a 9 v5 w9` 3'0 4z 218o' lg. "° giL .e33--�� Efla�1a .vo3-'�� P11a��5 _ 8a °°; 2. e a 2 W a iiil 01 n K x PC2EEe 2.5 9.1 c E<20E g- g� u E -o- E.220 a 2 g a E a c s) 8 4- rv,I Ee EEE N g§Y MA v- E Z u N 2-N e a o: • _ ,. „e I s eI 30 4 eES e 2 a Nm ryp I 2- E 1F §a a 12 2F V e' -oi cg 12 a w G c qs ali n o F 3 E N 5 ,4.2 ?c w ,`ip ;, o 3� O o ca "�'°a we - :..zl�.F a.° - s "N Ta E_ s>c c c i s � ;S op ca ' az 5. h-5 .. rp R R R s ;ge cc c c a ri � G A r d:'Fp!'. 5�C ? 6 C �a A 3 6C „,, y a6'o C'5 .4 y 1 FE n> i G�_ a' a °a g ` ° ' �2Q 2 5' 'N 0 a^e I�Fg � � o we �3��0 '.'` : .";` ja o.a Mot. a m a> > R F AE °a� la -FE5 ;..... �.q f 535`� � � aNa �y o8g _ '�:�� : . c °� m e m C `gym a I. h^o a c°EO -„ z c : g ae = '8 ag `ag 'afig °E' ati'a° 'a�' � `t �k= crE Pe !It w � 'Ls" x 3 5 e E.6'w �o Z 2. R:gal Z 8ga 3 1-Rig 4 1 a=§1 ga§ f;;4s, ... z a a" a �s• 9a °s?p wlai 5 8 a as �; $ E -€5 °a 2 .., a a a a° a�� f '�8 E c o.a o. e F G' •�' ': e ari a E a moo? a= £, . ads iws 5"g :`a " B S� aw daF �: c_° 9 3c a^ .i"" 4 I. C 5 a c , �° $ Etas _; , P4 B. a B. c e 5 'a g 'a tz a.x rn^ tn^ r - 3a Saa as RR a a E �,c c ' 5 aaN gv, P _ co ^o mm Hill mm C3 ro HE > °�eWSmil { B f 11 g EE a`i t 51 A o a'w`' =H E i g c e p r �?5 l , s !, a a ,go. Ede ff t, a € � 5' ' a aw a oe a m' 11 y. 8 l 8 a 50 m �m $ i ills i r; �8 a ^ a< ZS a'h� s fir. q 91 ,. . .a; =gym. = v l . E !E° 0, F aeo� ,T 3m 5., c if 5' a $ r^ G ES Ae' 9 d i ng zo 8 W1 ^n2' g �° �yy n m5 ' .a SOfiw Fm 111 �' g2 ya.ki e cae e g K50< a gg om S U k I. 4 SR < �e c. c E E� h4 a 5 :: T c c o�N c a F a EZ 8 r .- ..-.:.,,..,'A „ 401 il : .P gi. Fgh2; a N 0 h11 p.:-. gl , ,RG 5E g;gg i'—. ..4... gE mt i .:. ,-mli-;.,' tg ie a i,-- -gli 5 07,, t.i. ,i, q .,1,4.r: g„, .1 ,..n E Eig .='' -g, 0. =• n gn ,'''.: I. N r K g w § 1 -E k k iicis: 2 .1 ka 1 §E s R 81.1- . 5' t a 5 aS A L.?, 0 S = g Eg- i 11 91 s a 1-g- 2,.P agi A 46... I" 016,54IN g.'6.g 11.E.:: i o P E. .q g.g RUg P.-$$ q Ing' W. 9- Wig' n i : EP RE E gr. g.t6 ..i.ii 3; 0144 g 0 h It' 5,5" F!.!. .C.X0 R n g=gg 1Ng; gE sug.ggag .2 55 kR.5;1. gl2FF 18 °IA. 961. Ego 4R gs.E1 sg li S• 1 gi! ' N a a 1- A g a.ea y ff-0 F 8 ,c,. 2 w..g .N.r ga rgaigil :IE :-Ea. i._=_. : 2 glii 'a .EP 2'5 i.. lag; fi i;ii ..,.0i gps is° El P;ii -F E i 8,5,51, 0! 0 „7.i; llt. 11 iIi 0 i E.n a 5' .im 0 8.iTtP =g; 2 '. 61,1 9 5 vl 2,,gg 1 tO a!' 6: -2 2 A" 51i 581 g' 0.1 g Pz F; 2. 5-V-;,A A. g g E,7 -ng -I ais s 51 ia • - 5.,sa 6 w 71, k- ,,,;, - 4 i ill a E &lg ga 1-52 Fi Ri ma ,,..i..s. :,-: ... agg Ea ,..... 4 1* g R.F, • E• g el. e, t 4P la F 1 k.' 0-7 g, =V '. . : is' E. . m 1 ° I n Eg - J.:I E 1°," - g O 0 51 1111 f,... O 8 g e. A RV N .4n t P 8 E ; F.! .s.7, I is. I. i I i fa t k 5,k E 1 ;8.o Rg 1-g 11 a r, g i k na .g. "n rn rM1 m n * P r gp, 'kg 1 g ..„ 1 s r a r, kit 5- o . El hi 111 Tr t sill w WRI kr; t ., . 0.. P "° Egg. FE .. . .a.0 0a 4A OPti*1 PAU. Of r 04 iii l 1 Fl = Pkg. if w p'.',,i•:-.4,7,ivg,4; ,,$ 1 gig 1 npgil 8i E x . 11 t it !Ma If : Rif, ir t- ,g-.- g" 2 tgE zE Mg; E. ,' g 11 1.1 1 RP RI sgFa- 5. 5 410 OV . . .1" x 1. V ;;,1.1 [V E. 1g ig ...R . Nisi .5&g. a Iiii ' F ,:6i,ntt,A:4;;At n- -14 nE f .▪.80 N. 5,E, RR 16:i rg anr9- F gEg a 5 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • Exhibit D PUD Agreement 21 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE EDWARDS RIVERPARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT File Number: PDSP-9050 WHEREAS, on or about July 1, 2019, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, accepted for filing applications submitted by Sierra Trail Investments, LLC, (hereinafter "Developer") for approval of a an application for an amendment to the official zone district map of Eagle County (the "Zone Change"), File No. ZC-9029; an application for a combined Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development(the"Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD"),File No. PDSP-9050; and an application for approval of a 1041 Permit to construct major extensions of existing municipal and domestic water and wastewater treatment systems,File No. 1041-9030(the "1041 Permit"), for the development known as the Edwards RiverPark Planned Unit Development ("Edwards Riverpark PUD"), for the approximately 53.270-acre property located in Edwards, Colorado, and more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached to the Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). WHEREAS, concurrent with the approval of the Zone Change, Sketch and Preliminary • Plan for PUD, and the 1041 Permit for the PUD, the Developer and the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") hereby enter into this Planned Unit Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"), binding the PUD to any conditions placed in the Resolution approving the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD and this Agreement and such supplemental agreements relating to the PUD as may be appropriate and necessary;and, WHEREAS, this Agreement provides for the inclusion of a common open space park and recreational area plan, a landscape plan, and a housing plan in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (the"ECLUR"); and, WHEREAS, this Agreement ensures development of necessary public improvements planned to accommodate the development of the PUD in accordance with the ECLUR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 5-240.F.3.h. items (1) through (4) of the ECLUR, the Board finds that the following provision shall set forth the obligations of the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of approval of the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD, and the promises, covenants, and agreements to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is agreed: DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 1. CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION • 1.1 Conditions in the Resolution. The PUD, including the Developer and successive owners of any part thereof,is bound to all of the conditions placed in the resolution approving the application for the Zone Change and the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD approved by the Board on January 18, 2022 (the"Resolution"). 2. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS 2.1 Common Open Space Plan. The Developer agrees to be bound by its verbal and written assurance as to its common open spaces, parks and recreational areas as set forth in the PUD and in the Planned Unit Development Guide for The Edwards RiverPark PUD (the "PUD Guide"), a copy of which is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit B. The Common Open Space Plan, as outlined in Section 11 and Section 12 of the PUD Guide, specifies how the preservation of these lands is to be implemented, identifies the restrictions against development,and includes terms by which common areas are to be maintained. The Common Open Space Plan must be submitted with each application for a Final Plat, where applicable, with respect to the particular restricted land subject to such Final Plat and must be approved by the Board as part of the approval of each such Final Plat. 3. WETLANDS, FLOODPLAIN,AND STORMWATER 3.1 Wetlands. A preliminary Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and r Wetland Protection and Access Control Plan is attached to the PUD Guide, which is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit B. The Developer shall prepare and submit to the County a final Riparian and Water Quality Management Plan and Wetland Protection and Access Control Plan("Wetlands and Access Control Plan")with the application for the first Final Plat for PUD creating Planning Areas adjacent to the PUD wetlands. The final Wetlands and Access Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by Eagle County Community Development Director, or their assigns, prior to approval of such Final Plat.All other requirements for wetlands are outlined in the PUD Guide under Section 13. 3.2 Floodplain. In accordance with the ECLUR Section 3-350, a Floodplain Development Permit is required for development within a Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA).Because the development is proposed in close proximity to the SFHA and may include deep excavation for development of infrastructure and buildings, the Developer agrees to an expansion of the applicability of when a Floodplain Development Permit is required under the ECLUR to ensure that development does not create a floodplain connectivity, inclusion, adjacency, or expansion of the SFHA. In accordance with condition 1 of the Resolution,the Developer agrees that a Floodplain Development Permit shall be required for any development of a • 2 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • structure,as defined in the ECLUR, or uncovered porches, amphitheater,' decks,or other similar structurally attached projection within 10 ft horizontally'of the delineated 100-yr floodplain or 2 ft vertically of the base flood elevation at any point along the structure. The Floodplain Development Permit review process shall allow for further review and demonstration that the development is not allowing structures in the SFHA or with floodplain adjacency that would allow inclusion into the SFHA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the elevated boardwalk, bridge, and dock to be constructed through PA-1 are expected to be located in the 100-year floodplain. A Floodplain Development Permit is required for the installation of the elevated boardwalk, bridge, and dock through PA-1 and the Developer shall demonstrate adequate freeboard above the floodplain and flood proof design in accordance with the ECLUR Section 3-350. 3.3 Stormwater. The Developer agrees to prepare and submit to the County a final "Stormwater Treatment Appurtenances Operations and Maintenance Plan" (the "Stormwater Plan") prior to approval of the first final plat for the PUD. The Stormwater Plan shall be recorded immediately following the recording of the first final plat for the PUD. Thereafter, with each Final Plat for PUD that creates development tracts, the Developer shall prepare and submit a stormwater plan for the development proposed for each such Final Plat. Each such plan shall include cost estimates for the work necessary to create a complete stormwater system with connectivity to existing and future infrastructure.The stormwater improvements for the development proposed under each Final Plat shall be collateralized as public • improvements under the Subdivision Improvements Agreement ("SIA") for such Final Plat. In accordance with condition of approval 10 of the Resolution,the Developer agrees there shall be no development by the Developer of stormwater infrastructure, with the exception of stormwater outfalls, in the 100-year floodplain,which includes the entirety of both the Zone AE and the approximate Zone A 100-year floodplains. The Developer may choose to refine the 100-year floodplain by delineating it in accordance with FEMA Regulations for a Zone A and in accordance with the ECLUR Section 3-350.F. 4. LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT GUARANTEE 4.1 Landscape Plan. The Developer agrees to submit with the application for each Final Plat approval a landscape plan for the common and public areas of the Property subject to such Final Plat that complies with the Landscape Regulations of the PUD Guide (each a"Landscape Plan"). The Landscape Plan may be designed by PUD Phase, with installation occurring concurrently with the development of each Phase. The Landscape Plan must be approved by the Board 1 The amphitheater was removed from the Application by the Developer. However, the language above reflects the Condition of Approval in the Resolution. This language has been left in this Agreement in order to accurately reflect the language of the Condition of Approval,but should not . be construed to allow or require the construction of the amphitheater. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 before or concurrently with approval of each Final Plat with respect to the property subject to such Final Plat. 4.2 Eagle River Preserve Landscaping. A. The Developer shall provide landscape improvements and additional reclamation activities within the Eagle River Preserve in accordance with the Proposed Offsite Landscape Improvement Plan, attached to the PUD Guide as an Appendix attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution. The Developer shall be financially responsible for all aspects of the improvements including, reclamation and restoration, soil amendment, tree, and vegetation installation, temporary irrigation (up to 5 years as necessary), maintenance and survival of trees and irrigation for a number of years as determined by Eagle County, and removal of barbed wire fencing in the affected areas. These improvements are subject to approval by Eagle County and Eagle Valley Land Trust pursuant to the existing conservation easement affecting the Eagle River Preserve property. The Developer has agreed to provide $250,000 in landscaping improvements pursuant to the Offsite Landscape Improvement Plan. B. A comprehensive planting and stabilization plan for the landscape improvements to the Eagle River Preserve and a proposal for the connector trail alignment and design shall be provided to Eagle County Open Space and Eagle Valley Land Trust for review and approval prior to the application for the first Final Plat for the PUD. The connector trail shall align with previously approved • management plans for the Eagle River Preserve. Any major deviation from the identified location may require approval from Eagle Valley Land Trust and the Vail Valley Foundation.The plan shall include cost estimates of work proposed and shall be collateralized as public improvements in the SIA for the first Final Plat for the PUD. 4.3 Agreement to Collateralize Landscaping. The Developer agrees to provide collateral in a form acceptable to the County Attorney to ensure landscaping complying with the approved Landscape Plan for each Phase will be installed. The Developer agrees to provide such guarantee for no less than one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost to install the landscaping improvements for such Phase. The Developer agrees that the landscaping collateral for each Phase of the PUD shall be provided at the time of recording of the Final Plat for each such Phase. In the event such collateral is not received, the Final Plat for such Phase shall not be recorded. 4.4 Release of Landscape Guarantee. As portions of the landscape improvements are completed for a Phase, the Eagle County Community Development Director, or designated representatives within the County staff, shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) shall be withheld until all proposed improvements for such Phase are completed and approved, and an additional twenty-five percent (25%) shall be retained until the improvements • 4 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2)years. 4.5 Subdivision Improvement Agreements. The Developer agrees to execute a SIA prior to approval of each Final Plat for each Phase of the PUD. Each SIA will contain, among other things,the following provisions: A. Specification of Improvements. The improvements to be installed for each Phase(the"PUD Improvements")shall be specified,and shall include requirements as set forth in the Resolution approving File No. PDSP-9050. B. Indemnification. The Developer shall indemnify and hold the County harmless from any and all claims made against the County by any contractor, subcontractor, materialmen, employee, independent contractor, agent or representative involved in the work necessary to comply with any SIA, or on account of any other claims against the County because of the activities conducted in furtherance of the terms of any SIA. This indemnification and hold harmless provision shall include any reasonable and customary legal expenses or costs incurred by the County. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer shall not be liable to indemnify the County for claims caused by the act or omission of the County without regard to the involvement of the Developer. C. Certificates of Insurance. The Developer shall secure from any contractor or subcontractor engaged in the work necessary to comply with any SIA a 110 Certificate of Insurance providing for liability protection in the minimum amount of$350,000 per individual and $990,000 per occurrence, naming the County as an additional insured. The Developer, if it serves as the contractor for the PUD Improvements, shall provide insurance in the same form and amounts as required of the general contractor. Said limits shall be adjusted to comply with any changed limits in the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Title 24, Article 10, Section 114(1)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes. D. County Incurs No Liability. The County shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening or occurring to the PUD and/or PUD Improvements specified in any SIA prior to the completion and acceptance of the same; nor shall the County, nor any officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured or damaged by reasons of the nature of said work on the PUD Improvements, but all of said liabilities shall be and are hereby assumed by the Developer. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County and any of its officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities for which the County or any of its officers, agents, or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof)arise out of or are based upon any performance by the Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse the County for any and all legal and other expenses incurred by the County in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity provision shall be in • addition to any other liability which the Developer may have. 5 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 E. Guarantee for Public Improvements. The agrees Developer to provide for P each Phase of the PUD a guarantee in a form acceptable to the County Attorney to ensure necessary public improvements are installed according to the development approval for no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the public facility improvements, as estimated by the Developer's engineer and approved by the Eagle County Engineer. The Developer agrees that the guarantee for each Phase of the PUD shall be provided at the time of recording of the Final Plat for such Phase. In the event such guarantee is not received, the Final Plat for such Phase shall not be recorded. As portions of the public facilities improvements are completed for a Phase,the Eagle County Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed cost for that portion of the improvements except that ten percent (10%) shall be withheld until all proposed improvements for such Phase are completed and approved by the Eagle County Engineer. F. Warranty. Each SIA shall provide for a warranty period of two (2) years following substantial completion of the last of the public improvements within the Phase covered by the SIA. 5. PHASING 5.1 Phasing. Development of the PUD is proposed in three primary phases(each a "Phase"), as set forth in Section 20 of the PUD Guide (the "Phasing Plan"), with the areas adjacent to the steep slopes of the Property being developed first to support infrastructure development. The Phasing Plan contemplates development of ten planning areas (each a "Planning Area" or "PA") which are depicted on the "Edwards RiverPark PUD Zoning Plan", attached to the PUD Guide as Appendix attached to the Resolution as Exhibit B, and described in Section 6 of the PUD Guide. For purposes of clarity as related to the Phasing Plan, it is agreed(i)that the development tracts, park or open area commensurate with each phase as detailed with each final plat of the property, and individual Planning Areas being created within each Phase and the collateralization of the infrastructure serving the same will be platted and its public improvements (e.g. roads within the Planning Area) collateralized separately as market conditions dictate;and(ii)nothing in the Phasing Plan is to be construed as requiring the Developer to implement Phases in any particular sequence or to require the completion of one Phase before commencing construction of a different Phase pursuant to the SIA for that different Phase. The final configuration for a particular Phase shall be determined pursuant to the Final Plat approval for such Phase and may be different from the Phasing Plan as so approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer agrees to commence construction of Phase 1 first,including the collateralization of the infrastructure and amenities detailed in the Phasing Plan and as set forth below. The timing of the construction of workforce housing units shall follow the timing and schedule set forth in Section 5 of the PUD Guide. Pursuant to the PUD Guide, Phase 1 shall include at a minimum: • 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 - 50 multiple family rental apartment units(workforce housing)-PA-3 or PA- 4; - The ratio of RO deed restricted units to free market units will be 1:1,verified by the County via building permit applications per Section 5 of the PUD Guide. - Boardwalks and dock- PA-1 - Wildlife friendly fencing along Eagle River Preserve boundary in PA-5 and PA-7 - US Highway 6 ("Hwy 6") improvements - Internal roadways (primary and secondary) The Developer agrees to develop the Hwy 6 improvements described in the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings attached to the Resolution as Exhibit E and consistent with Section 8 of this Agreement.No temporary or final certificate of occupancy may be issued for Phase 1 prior to completion of the Hwy 6 improvements or the roadways internal to the development. 6. HOUSING PLAN 6.1 Housing Plan. The Developer has agreed to the Affordable Housing Plan approved as part of the PUD, which Affordable Housing Plan is set forth in the PUD Guide attached as Exhibit B of the Resolution and as set forth in Section 5 of the PUD Guide. A PUD Amendment will be required for any changes in project phasing • and/or unit mix that result in a disproportionate reduction in the number of deed restricted units or results in a housing plan that no longer exceeds the recommendations of the Housing Guidelines. 7. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 7.1 Conservation Easements. A deed of conservation easement for PA-1, PA-7 and PA-9 respectively (each a "Conservation Easement") shall be executed by the appropriate parties and recorded in the Eagle County, Colorado real property records promptly following approval of the Final Plat creating each such Planning Area. The final easement area for each Conservation Easement will be defined as part of the Final Plat approval applicable to the particular Planning Area. All Conservation Easements must recognize the uses permitted in the PUD Guide for the particular Planning Area. In the case of PA-7,the boundary of the Conservation Easement may be reduced to exclude the seasonal event center, as determined by an appropriate Land Trust. 7.2 Timing of Recording. Promptly following the Final Plat approval creating PA-1, PA-7 and PA-9, respectively, the applicable Conservation Easement shall be executed and recorded. 7.3 Terms of Conservation Easements. The terms and provisions of the Conservation Easements will be determined by mutual agreement of the Developer, the County • Open Space Director, or assigns within the County staff, and an appropriate Land 7 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 Trust prior to approval of the Final Plat(s) creating PA-1, PA-7 and PA-9, respectively. 8. ROADWAYS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE 8.1 Hwy 6 Improvements: General. The Developer has agreed to provide public infrastructure improvements along the Hwy 6 corridor adjacent to the PUD to support multi-modal access to the Property including highway intersection improvements, highway widening, transit stop infrastructure, and sidewalks/paths, as set forth on the Hwy 6 Improvement drawings (the "Hwy 6 Improvements") attached as Exhibit E to the Resolution (the "Hwy 6 Improvement drawings"). In accordance with conditions of approval 7 and 8 to the Resolution, the Developer is solely responsible for all aspects of the acquisition and dedication of adequate right- of-way for the Hwy 6 Improvements, including but not limited to; intersection, roadway,transit stop infrastructure,guardrails, sidewalks and paths, signage,utility relocation and coordination,retaining walls, and adequate stormwater and drainage infrastructure. The Developer is solely responsible for all aspects of completing the land dedication process and obtaining permitting for the agreed upon improvements with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and/or Eagle County, which may include but is not limited to developing the permitting materials and reports,paying permitting and inspection fees, conformance with CDOT and Eagle County standards, and supplying performance bonds. All required right-of- way/easements shall be dedicated and accepted by CDOT and Eagle County prior • to or at the time of the first Final Plat for the PUD. The Developer agrees to obtain all CDOT permits for the PUD improvements in accordance with condition of approval 8 under the Resolution. 8.2 Hwy 6: Primary Access Point and Lake Creek Road Intersection. The Developer has agreed to construct a roundabout intersection improvement at the Lake Creek Road Intersection, as shown in the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings. The Developer shall comply with all requirements under the Colorado State Highway Access code for a complete improvement. The roundabout shall have, at a minimum, a two-lane approach and two-lane exit on the Hwy 6 legs and one-lane approach and one-lane exit to both the Lake Creek Road and the PUD's primary access point legs. The Developer agrees to provide at a minimum the following appurtenances: non- traversable splitter islands, landscape island, concrete apron with mountable curb, bike lane integration into the intersection/sidewalks, sidewalks, 10-foot wide pedestrian path relocation, and multi-modal access. The intersection improvement shall include adequate pedestrian/bicycle crossings on all roundabout legs complete with 10-foot wide crosswalks, ADA compliant ramps, rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian/bicycle refuge islands, signage, thermoplastic pavement markings, striping, and other requirements of Eagle County and CDOT standards. The Developer shall be required to collateralize the improvements in the SIA for the first Final Plat of the PUD. The Hwy 6 Primary Access Point and Lake Creek Road Intersection improvements shall be completed and accepted by CDOT and Eagle County prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any 8 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • building permit issued for the PUD. 8.3 Hwy 6: Secondary Access Point. The Developer has agreed to provide a right-in, right-out access intersection at the western, secondary access point onto Hwy 6 as shown on the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings. The access improvement shall include all requirements for compliance with the Colorado State Highway Access code for a complete improvement and have, at a minimum, a non-traversable median on Hwy 6. If required per the State Highway Access Code, the Developer is also responsible for any acceleration and deceleration lanes warranted by the PUD. The Developer agrees to provide multi-modal access including adequate pedestrian and bicycle crossings of the access road to be provided with crosswalks, ADA compliant ramps, signage, thermoplastic pavement markings, striping, and other requirements of Eagle County and CDOT standards. The Developer shall be required to collateralize the improvements in the SIA associated with the first Final Plat of the PUD. The Hwy 6 Secondary Access Point improvements shall be completed and accepted by CDOT and Eagle County prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building permit issued for the PUD. 8.4 Hwy 6: Roadway Segments. The Developer agrees to provide capacity expansion improvements for the length of Hwy 6, at a minimum, to the extent shown in the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings. The Hwy 6 capacity improvement shall include, at a minimum, widening of the highway cross-section to a 4 lane cross-section for a length as shown on the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings, adequate lane drop tapers • as defined by CDOT, and any requirements for a complete improvement as identified in the CDOT Notice to Proceed(NTP)process. The Developer agrees to reconstruct all existing access connections in accordance with the Colorado State Highway Access Code. The Developer agrees to provide as shown on the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings at a minimum the following appurtenances for the Hwy 6 Roadway Segments: non-traversable medians, curb and gutter, thermoplastic pavement markings, striping, and multi-modal access infrastructure including a 6-foot paved bike lane in both directions for the extent of the improvement, construction or reconstruction of 10-foot wide pedestrian paths, and sidewalks. Sidewalks widths shall be in accordance with the PUD Guide Section 7.D, the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings, and Eagle County and CDOT standards. The Developer shall be required to collateralize the improvements in the SIA associated with the first Final Plat of the PUD. The improvements shall be completed and accepted by CDOT and Eagle County prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building permit issued for the PUD. 8.5 Hwy 6: Transit Infrastructure. The Developer agrees to fully fund, design, provide adequate right-of-way/easements for permanent use of the property,obtain permits, and construct two ECO Transit stops, one for each direction of roadway travel. The stops shall be complete with a bus pull out lane, curb and gutter, transit shelter, covered bicycle parking, signage, and all other standard ECO Transit amenities. The transit stops shall be on Hwy 6 adjacent to the PUD's primary access point in a location in conformance with the PUD Guide, acceptable to ECO Transit, and 9 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 generally detailed on the Hwy 6 Improvements drawings (Exhibit E of the • Resolution). The Developer shall be required to obtain all necessary permits and comply with the provisions of the ECLURs and CDOT Standards and collateralize all the transit improvements in the SIA associated with the first Final Plat of the PUD. The Developer or the metropolitan district formed for the PUD shall obtain and be the permittee under any permits for improvements within the CDOT right- of-way. Upon its acceptance of the infrastructure, ECO Transit will own and maintain the bus shelters and shelter pads, the covered bike parking structure and pad, transit stop signage and furniture within or affixed to the bus shelters. The Developer, master homeowners association or metropolitan district formed for the PUD shall maintain all sidewalks associated with the bus shelters and Hwy 6. All transit infrastructure improvements shall be completed and accepted by ECO Transit prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building permit issued for the PUD. 8.6 Roadways Internal to the PUD. The Developer agrees to provide the roadways internal to the development ("PUD Roadways") in accordance with the standards of the ECLUR, PUD Guide Section 7.D, and variations granted by the Board found in the Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table, Exhibit C of the Resolution. The roadway infrastructure shall be provided with adequate stormwater and drainage infrastructure, utility relocation and coordination, curb and gutter, guardrails,thermoplastic pavement markings, striping, sidewalks,intersections and pedestrian/bicycle integration. Per the ECLUR requirements, two points of ingress • and egress are required to the development, and therefore the entirety of the looped roadway is required to be built in the first Phase of development. In accordance with condition of approval 6 of the Resolution, the Developer agrees to provide internal roadway designs including anticipated trips, access locations, design speeds, design criteria, and emergency vehicle access routes for review and approval by the Eagle County Engineering Department at each Final Plat for PUD that includes construction activities. The PUD Guide illustrative development plan includes internal roads with a primary intersection, currently proposed as a roundabout. The Developer agrees to provide at a minimum the following appurtenances: a landscape island, concrete apron with mountable curb,non-traversable splitter islands,crosswalks,Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, thermoplastic pavement markings, striping, signage, and other requirements of Eagle County standards. The intersection improvements shall be adequately designed for emergency service and delivery vehicles and include bicycle lane integration. The design shall include adequate pedestrian and bicycle crossings on all roundabout legs. Similar appurtenances shall be provided for any type of intersection design. The Developer agrees to provide sidewalks and crosswalks internal to the development as set forth in the Applications and in Section 8.7 of this Agreement. Upon the approval of the Eagle County Engineering Department, some improvements may be phased commensurate with the development proposed in each Final Plat for PUD. The Developer shall be required to collateralize the internal PUD roadway • 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • improvements in the SIA associated with the first Final Plat of the PUD. The improvements shall be completed and accepted by Eagle County prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building permit issued for the PUD. 8.7 Sidewalks, Paths, and Trails. A pedestrian and bicycle trail network has been designed for the PUD to provide strong pedestrian connections between each Planning Area, the Eagle Valley Regional Trail, and the Preserve Open Space. Paths and trails are to be constructed in accordance with ECLUR requirements with the exception of the approved variation for a reduced trail width over the wetland boardwalk through PA-1. Sidewalks are to be at a minimum the width detailed in the PUD Guide Section 7.D. The Developer has agreed to provide a wider sidewalk width of 8 feet as detailed in the PUD Guide Section 7.D The Developer shall grant a public access easement for all internal sidewalks, trails, paths, and connections external to the development. Adequate easements shall also be provided across private property as necessary for installation and maintenance of all sidewalk,path, or trails. A crosswalk connection with ADA ramps and adequate signage shall be provided across any internal roads in convenient walking distance of any gathering area, trail access point, or park when a sidewalk exists across the roadway and in accordance with applicable standards of practice. 8.8 Dedication,Construction and Maintenance.At the first Final Plat for the PUD,PUD Roadways, sidewalks, paths, and trails to be constructed pursuant to the PUD and 1111 depicted on such Final Plat shall be constructed to the applicable CDOT and County Standards, except as varied in the Edwards River Park Variation Summary Table attached to the Resolution as Exhibit C or as otherwise varied by the Board, and dedicated to the public access pursuant to customary plat dedication language, subject to a warranty period and acceptance.Further,construction,maintenance and repair of PUD Roadways, sidewalks, paths, and trails shall be the responsibility of the Developer or its successor or assigns (which may be an owners association or metropolitan district)pursuant to plat notes delineated on the Final Plat with respect to PUD Roadways, sidewalks, paths, and trails created by such Final Plat. The responsibilities undertaken by the Developer or its successor or assigns with respect to the trails,PUD Roadways,sidewalks,paths,and trails include,without limitation, the obligation of construction, maintenance and repair of the PUD Roadways, sidewalks, paths, and trails, to include traffic control signs and markings, and of compliance with the snow management plan for the PUD, which shall contain the provisions set forth below(the "Snow Management Plan"). 8.9 Road Impact Fees. The PUD is subject to the Road Impact Fees (also known as "Transportation Impact Fees")as currently detailed in Section 4-710 of the ECLUR which may be updated or relocated in the future. The Developer agrees to pay the Road Impact Fees in accordance with the provision of the regulation in effect at the time of development of each phase of the PUD. Any Exemptions,Credits,Refunds, or Independent Fee Calculation Studies must be requested or performed in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time of development of each phase • of the PUD. 11 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • 9. OTHER MATTERS 9.1 Snow Management Plan. The Snow Management Plan contains the following provisions: a. Snow storage areas shall be provided in the PUD in an amount equal to 2.5% of all on-street parking areas as detailed in the ECLUR. b. Snow removal and maintenance for all roadways, bike lanes, paths, trails, and sidewalks associated with the PUD shall be provided by the master owner's association or the metropolitan district formed for the PUD. c. Snowmelt infrastructure shall be constructed for any roadways, driveways, exterior ramps,bicycle lanes, and sidewalks with grades in excess of 8%. d. Snow removal from all public streets and sidewalks shall commence by the master owners association or the metropolitan district formed for the PUD with any snowfall amount of 2"or greater. e. Repair and replacement of the snowmelt infrastructure shall be the sole responsibility of the master homeowners association or the metropolitan district formed for the PUD. f. Snow removal from private walkways and roadways shall be required to be commenced by the parcel owner with any snowfall amount of 2"or greater. g. 50% of the energy used for the snowmelt infrastructure will be offset by onsite solar water/glycol systems or other renewable sources. • The Developer shall be required to collateralize the snowmelt infrastructure and associated systems in the SIA associated with the first Final Plat for the PUD. The improvements shall be completed and accepted by Eagle County prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building permit issued for the PUD. 9.2 PUD Utilities.At the first Final Plat for the PUD,utilities to be constructed pursuant to the PUD shall be depicted on the Final Plat("PUD Utilities"). The PUD Utilities shall be constructed to County and the applicable utility standards, except if otherwise varied by the Board, and subject to a warranty period and acceptance. The improvements shall be completed and accepted by Eagle County prior to the first Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any building permit issued for the PUD. Further, construction, maintenance and repair of PUD Utilities shall be the responsibility of the Developer or its successor or assigns (which may be an owners association or metropolitan district formed for the PUD) pursuant to plat notes delineated on the Final Plat with respect to PUD Utilities created by such Final Plat. The responsibilities undertaken by the Developer or its successor or assigns with respect to the PUD Utilities include, without limitation, the obligation of construction, maintenance, repair, and easement dedication of the PUD Utilities in accordance with the requirements of the utility provider. Upon the approval of the Eagle County Engineering Department, some utilities may be phased commensurate with the development proposed in each plat; these may include • 12 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • electrical, localized stormwater and drainage infrastructure, shallow utilities, or similar. 9.3 Geologic Hazards. The Developer has provided the County with the Edwards River Park Geologic Hazard Assessment as prepared by Cesare Inc. (revised April 4, 2019) and supporting documents, and a copy of the report is attached as an Appendix to the PUD Guide which is Exhibit B of the Resolution. In addition, the Developer agrees to provide detailed Geologic hazards reports stamped by a licensed professional engineer analyzing and proposing mitigations for any geologic hazard impacting the Property, including but not limited to sinkhole potential, rim subsidence, fill, organics and otherwise compressible soils, construction-related slope instability, shallow groundwater, flooding, and seismicity. Each such report must be reviewed and accepted by the Engineering Department at the time of application for Final Plat for the development proposed under such Final Plat. The report shall demonstrate a safe adequate building site for the proposal and detail any mitigations required to mitigate geologic hazards impacting the development area. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the development, a demonstration of conformance with any geologic hazard mitigations must be demonstrated. 10. CONSTRUCTION 10.1 Construction Site Management. The Design Guidelines for the PUD shall contain language to address the potential issue of idle construction sites within the PUD as follows: "Any site within the PUD that has been disturbed by clearing or construction activities that is idle for more than sixty (60) days shall be subject to proper stabilization and temporary revegetation as follows: a. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized to prevent erosion within or from the site, and no area of the site shall exceed a 2:1 slope. b. All bare ground areas shall be revegetated with either an annual cover crop (for short-term idling of less than 8 months) or a perennial cover crop (for long-term idling more than 8 months). If necessary,topsoil shall be applied to enable successful revegetation. c. All revegetated areas shall be supported by a temporary automatic irrigation system. d. The master association formed for the PUD shall have the authority to enter the Property and conduct such revegetation or maintenance measures as may be required to bring the parcel into compliance with the PUD Guide. The Developer shall be assessed the cost of performing these tasks." 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS 11.1 Compliance with Land Use Regulations. The Developer shall be required to obtain all necessary permits and comply with the provisions of the ECLUR, including but not limited to the Regulations for Construction within the Public Ways of Eagle • County (Chapter V), as the same are in effect at the time of commencement of 13 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 construction of the PUD Improvements referred to herein. 41111 11.2 Sole Responsibility of Developer Prior to County Acceptance. The Developer agrees and understands that at all times prior to the completion and acceptance of the on and off-site PUD Improvements set forth in this Agreement and the SIAs by the County, each of said improvements not accepted as complete shall be the sole responsibility and charge of the Developer. When it is necessary to allow the general public to utilize the PUD Roadways under construction by the Developer, traffic control and warning devices shall be placed upon such roadways by the Developer in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways as prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 11.3 Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related documents shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of such subsection or document. 11.4 Amendment and Modification. The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may be amended or modified from time to time, provided that such amendment or modification is in writing and signed by the County and the Developer or the Developer's successor(s) with respect to the actual Phase(s) III affected by any such amendment. Minor deviations from this Agreement may be approved by the County Community Development Director or his or her designee within the County staff. Minor deviations that are authorized are those generally described in Section 5-240.F.3.1 of the ECLUR. 11.5 Assignability. This Agreement shall be enforceable against the Developer, provided, however, that in the event the Developer sells, transfers or assigns all or part of the PUD, the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement as to that portion of the PUD may be assumed in writing by the purchaser of the parcel, and the Developer shall have no further obligations hereunder. It is agreed, however, that no such assumption of these obligations shall be effective unless the County gives its prior written approval to such assumption following an investigation of the financial condition of the purchaser. The Developer shall not otherwise assign, transfer, convey, pledge or otherwise dispose of this Agreement without prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 11.6 Binding upon Successors. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective successors, and assigns. 11.7 No Rights to Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon or grant to any third party any right to claim damages or to bring any lawsuit, action or other proceedings against either the County or its officers, employees or agents because of any breach hereof or because of any terms, • 14 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • covenants,agreements or conditions contained herein. 11.8 Enforcement. At its sole option, the County may enforce the provisions of this Agreement and of any applicable deed restrictions and covenants in the same manner and with the same remedies applicable to the enforcement of land use regulations pursuant to the ECLUR, as they may be amended from time to time, or as otherwise provided by law. Alternatively,the terms of this Agreement and of any applicable deed restrictions and covenants shall be enforceable by the Board or its designee by any appropriate equitable or legal action, including but not limited to specific performance,mandamus,abatement,or injunction. The remedies explicitly provided herein are cumulative, and not exclusive, of all other remedies provided by law. 11.9 Notice. Any notice required pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed given on the day that the same is placed in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Address for giving notice to County: Eagle County Attorney's Office P.O. Box 850, 500 Broadway Eagle, CO 81631 III (970) 328-8685 Address for giving notice to Developer: Sierra Trail Investments LLC Attn: Keith Novick, Manager 629 Jasper Ave Franklin, Tennessee 37064 Any party may change its address for receiving notices by delivery of at least seven (7) days' prior notice to the other party pursuant to the foregoing provisions. With respect to any successor to Developer with respect to the PUD or a specific Phase of the PUD as provided in this Agreement, unless another address is provided in writing by such successor,the notice address for such successor shall be the address on file with the Eagle County Assessor's Office or the address of such successor's Registered Agent with the Colorado Secretary of State's Office, if applicable. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] • 15 DocuSign Envelope ID:5A6152BB-DC36-4B7A-8903-00173CCB7815 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO,by and through its Board of County Commissioners By: CDocuSigned by: �w,�.0 eC� CA4AC128F8AA47A Jeanne McQuenney ((ithGLE coGZ� County Commissioners Chair y` ATTEST:�DocuSignedby: r'o Raoo' rt#10 ��j�jVlt ln. aD7F aoa 94 Clerk to the board of ° • County Commissioners Developer: Sierra Trail Investments LLC, a Colorado limited liability company /—DocuSigned by: By: `— Je822CD898o487 Name: Keith Novick Its: Manager • 16 Exhibit E Hwy 6 Improvements Drawings 22 ''�93."„�"NW 1f1OAV-1 OI113WO3O 9 AMH B,eL/BB,ro 3I,0 WIVIaliLs'mode or maniemvions LrrfC ON BM F JN1 ONINMNION3 s,NBwna xaN3n of ssNo�Ba ozoz/zVZB r -M�7ar mwep {._,„ OOY O1oo 'A.LNf10o 310 d3 csi S N3WWa M3N3tl 0 35N0d5 b e BZ/LL/el f =V '1� a )klVd crania saaWMaa B NBWWa 0 35NBb53b s,Bz/rz/c° L w, NMYtlO (n aNId1t/ B NVdAtl5340Wl3tldB ewz afro ON 9b'BlB'MAW 03NB530 ;7 ##P; 1 ! N. h ,, q 411 -' fluiiiiiiinhII \ , t f * I ,I I, 1 I. I. 3NIlHO1VW i I L II a ' i z I � � i t � i � � � � I; (� 1 .7 C7 1'. F j § I II iiII III e1;' r t R i%r./ tr. ".� Z_G 1 t t . 1 It i i i AI t F �I(((U�, /�/,J / hr �( t3 ja.. /1 . 0 l '.."...........'■ I. d Jj I: I /` 1 mI Jtiti €[ Ii �,\ (r lip 8 //i; j i Ili I • i i ill I I h rc $ o gNY I i y I 'n I I. I a 11 {\\ \\.' tom - bl�. , I 4\ \ \ \, '4„..,..:.-. .=4 4 r 'b'��Hy _ ' tg,\N-----., -_,_ / b i /// 1. \ I. -P / _/ k h li ' /(1 ' i- r41( o / A J i , � I r' �.I:l fj/I$It I 1 /, IpiI 1 iir ill ., ii , / p 11 pig la , 1 \'\,\,: i (/// II 11,.. I h W �a I p 1 w pi 1 a. p �r yyco \ \ 3 E I o 1 COZ illill 1 K ltl J� c Wtq \ _- �i9 i8fI f i 1 WW Irwaxwrtve.^:-_"' MN= -w.+.vew:••nrw.NNVO R.,P.E-2OUW CDCTlw M„WIAtc.2/1y7020 emwAM. 4 " 1. ! : il 1-/ , I. - m / i ` JJJJ :11 / tii /e. yr 110..../.........7.12-----,,C-73 0 i / ,, el II lf /♦;`� l 1 s y1y g I.'i. ii I /,41 i I - /. t t // i j l 1li, �MATCHUNE / i, •�'' I 7 1 II iii, ���•'. I f -"- tea_ y it tili ( ___________ 1I I P3i I it tIij / 1 .. {./jj I, 1 .1 1. t t I • I' i''i .F. I I � t d I .1 % i I u v iL, ` f s lr r f I : KI i 1 I I i I ; .I I I I 1 *NI 8 1 r I , / I1j1 I l ! Ici i � I e Z1I I I , I I I I i ti ! ' lI � i 18 • pa ! !!IiI!!i!1Ii E 1 ea I i / c pE''pNE'MCW�9,RIP Np OA,E RENSIXIS 9. EDWARDS RIVER PARK ALPINE M OS 2019 RESPONSE T PLAN �, DRAWN Rif 2 p>J2{/2019 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS p 10/21/2019 RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS Nm CHECKED MCW { 02/12/2020 RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO O>4.4 m JOB No >pa{2 ENGINEERING INC. PATE 04/09/2019 HWY 6 GEOMETRIC LAYOUT NRIYW.,,TATNR.C:OM .............____....._. 1 x 8 i . ,, , 1, . c„. , _ I �� �/// 8 J ,I . - ! a l I [w oirsld / Y I 1 _ 's .' w 9 ,. dSi g !N '- 1 1 4 '6/ fff 11 / Ir¢ .T 1 i lei / � MOM I I / s-o y, ( ! ! { $ , \, n4. l * ! \Pg, ya I n«.n.,.N yy1° ._u;>,l Y�,y YM/� /(j(fY !` or '� l...+ a i,,,.5i mR91 i ` , 14 /7*--.,zt.--‘47,14„,„..... v NI , 1 •ithii1 IF, 1/ !. Ist fr � d F I lr/ 3 _ / / rlrl ,ll/ .. / ry �l i I ll!'/l\ . _'r1 /a i� nI I$ / 11111:111 /p Pt :.' js l ' r i d/'I�� //I ,..- 'if \ /�_:itjli / j I/I,T:I /I1-.I"1 + 1 1 I1 `\ I g _ ■ r7 , � i � G / f' ' NI , , 11, til '. \,\ \'\ \\ '' :'i / lNib%,/,gi i !'J]I m \ ., \\\ \ p v/l/ 11/1 / 1 II 1111 GGG111 \ \ \ \ \ \ i 'n' l ytt /: ,// + 'rl l'i l/s I \ \ ` \\ \ , \ l/■ F l! 1 „ 0 1 _l \ l f),/,',/),,,Il 11 1,//I I l y■6 !!!¢ttt , \ 3/{I , / illy **6:‘, ,v 1 v I v �: v 11,"11 + G i. "//1 / III I /,'2"..I {I 'VI I � \\`\\'\ 1 \ I Y/ 3 I:iI+f I:'j Ij11 `;�r Ii1/u+Il 11 l \^iIr l � i \ , y III \\ I 1\ I\ \,\ \1 I1 /,rM1` \\,‘t1 1I\ ,1 1/4/4'•/ _ i. ' � IIIl1 i • i ._ � v ,� ,� ' , ,1 1 1 I I I I I I h✓ \ \ ' � I iil Ir , ,,il / .. I i r __,. __ � \ Ytf � ,. ,,,,, illll '1t it _ _ ,\ ,: ! ° ii , .. , . ,., ..._i ;,.,, R. �� r lilli F II "�tiI - ',;l „..,r, , � r 1111 Y �, - .\ 3 � / r�"V�III\.� ,,•�� `\. $ill .Ig, . i/ �, \ i I IINI I/te*-r /fir �'`\ 1 l' �� �II,�I - ,ice• N 1,I - I i d11N �, 1 ;rr?'"'"'.......r.. f,,,,,,,,,,„„;;;;;,,,,t,,,,,,,;,„,i,,,,,,N4,,- ._.._._._,. m I /� 1 I.J3'. ` �I'll lj�l!II I ,I''Ilj ll'�, 1' �i� ir>. MATC /INE - +\III/Ir 'rr '/I I!Il rll 1� I' 1 I 111141�1 I11�1/III I,'f 1,rl ! ®®'i ATA g�^ / I r� 'I 1!II II / IIfl/111 go m d { " p N,41IrIIf+ %l,l,,u IIl IIj� q /,,r+I 1 I, J r rr n' l �/P /4'fi Y Tauta ill ..�'I 1 `Nxr' ui%�)Inl. ll/l7ilil�� ����'! e I Y Y I,,';,, , ,lull /oa, I .) r,l, II iI,III Iuilr � il ii Y fy , ,,;Ir111111Lk 11,,1 ./s� 0 r, 1 -' 1. ,. ! ,:1111! h1 1 j11. 1, l :/ .'1 ,, i,,,I;;nlll ll�j','I`.',II i : t' $0 II u 9EA�E9bCW°° "I °"� RENgON9 R. EDWARDS RIVER PARK ALPINE 1 w/OS/t019 RESPONSE PRELIMINARY PLAN /� �' y DRAWN RIF 07/2e/2019 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS C)S S 10/s1n019 RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO N mrr, ...EU MC. • 02/12/2020 RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS nWmmOOMMCUMARAPPAA roe No Taus ON NE T NNpw1 n DATE w/oen919 HWY 6 ROAD PLAN & PROFILES N/wwaEVINECMLCOM Dvew.DIAMwow Ww,nn-2m1KAKSCoOryrm.D.2.2/11/' 092eA2ANloth _ +fig ya[E\ `' „Ili�u.~ JI(f ill r,ii rl I.�� 1 I �-"` wl I ,l IJ p _,/II AWm'1/-. 'dl � 1 '1p'I �! 2 lej �Y'r�`4w A7 1 r�( t v F'1�_0jII 1/,r �A 11I j1 ��...�-�„4��'���� k ( pp TCNLINE !l IIE .� rl j�E-'i,.�\�� �`\ g A S 6 I i t „Fit rl.y?;Ii,1. � ,,�/ I / 1, it El � i �I;ii'I;IIIr II111111•`�N•'4 I i i i '_ t Fli u;ll'r I'flrii4ill �V\ I V ' , ,‘ / til . ' ' i' 1 410/,'"RP;/'";iiii ))) \/: RAT.mL1N= �. I,I I rf o4. l 1 114 ST o.,:, mrt. I. I f , / / I , il,;r;l,r l s i t 1 t•i' 11l' ''if/ f rr'Irf' 1 :� ,",Iti t t , I,ilrl,rl r,/,1j, �� _- -:F ,I ,.,.:, 4 . I' 1' t ,t r4n;l/II''' I,III y t t_ III'1` 1`�I i11111r AVA d /II<` ' ` I!�,� 't ! ail tllll,i'i l., - I;Illi. ,��'� f�^+r p3 t- 1 17,1 11 14 1 {-`III II � 1 � t F � kl�' J ..: 1,,,/,Pl Ifs,, I Ifll��I ;I s ae — n ! yt/ 1 1' 1 1 fl p /: s */ 4UI :y Sri hii'li'il ''illl'4%i �� j/ 1 "�, II , I,I, I r p li . �"I _ - .,�i s- I� t i I III r,il r l it� Diu. Iw���,, J i v ', _.y2. :e i I+Ii Ii /i/u ,i li • L._...., It'_'»o`'""" '�'� .:� t >! .,i ` '� .J Jrr�l!l/�Ir� ��,/111 ni OrPi 1 , l�"_ :'r It ?M na j �- — � / � "t rt � I ref � � 1 ' it' ii II _ riIi1E I ` y- `/ a / ',141 i riil ii/I'''f II ',I o ,Iv ` ::.` -.� li i '/ ra �yq1 'r,I1 ulri!d Il lgIli,i'�� � � �' fit l, ,,,, l� \f i \Ijl I l llll''I l/IIII-1 -', 2, , i l lll l � , • ' Tr 'I.�.. `��„\— _ / ,rl /� i i'rli i dll,l,ll\1i,l it_�� f I/ I I 1'J .k F f i111,llilnll'I� I,iri d�l > �� � jnam 2 j r fl _;`r,:, i III, iil,q,,,„,l I r,dlv , ,., f 7 'i l I I,1' III III I l ' l 1 \I ' \�`�, r III 11111'Iil fl l 1 I l II: 2r 'I: tt +liillii I i',�',' ��� x 7 A11 1, , i i f ill//1!i',,' '1yvf r 1 1 I v': � • / 7�I. • � �/!Il\ ,.,.�--W_ � �-; .. '.'"' ,' \ i t /j//IJ yt IiI 11 f, t • J '/ ` 0U 1 't � , Ir I r , ,y ll \It 1 i \ f l l, I , 17 s M i.__ 6 i!' iJ f t / ail ,' I / I :i I I .;::', ,,1 Rd,S i_ _ _ 1 ,v / :i_ , 1 � l i, Il 'ti i I, /r , r , 11 T F ' , I I/; I I ,l f 'r ,1 � 11 _ L y� t 1 I I i, 1'. \t 1 1 I C I / / _ / I! / 'f Ili `,',1\,`\,\``\\ f + ,-- ,/ W1aBN1Y�i f l 1, \\\I , i 1 ;\\ \'i t\f ' .., I'1 1, ' ` Il 'II II✓V r' ; \, \,\rl\`\I\ I 11 1 -1' ` �/ 1 1 1 1\ \ \\\,1 I1 I I "\ \I f , -'r I I 9 1 I � \� \ + J --- � - _ I 1 PI, 1 f Tzue J. ' ,8 I 1 �1�\I' 1;�- \ 1 I� 1 I\ \ 4 1 ' `/ EEEI= It+',, \i 1 ! f f 11 I ,j, 1 , I i Bn / /1 1 /1 y e / i a l l I j\\`' 1 i t I.1\\j I I / i I(1 r g g... g 8 g i sG \'i / _ i I-I Y I I , ..' 1`\11i Ij,I t I, {'�2 E6ee Ii- � Ill \t\ �\.__ ,1If 1'I1 ` II . 1^1'�n S' , I fi Irf !\ ^:1 % ,IiI,' Irf f ; ,1 I ,l + 1 /k ;t l i /1 /1 I < / `\1 I 1 ,r I; ` 1 I 1 r MIMEO M`W OLB.RIP ND DA,E RENSDNB a" 1 EDWARDS RIVER PARK ALPINE 1 04(OS/2019 RESPONSE T PLAN IA DRAWN RIP 2 to21/2018 RESPONSE TO REVIEW CS ��' n 2 ,0/2,/20 B RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO NI CHECKED MCW ♦ 02/12/2020 RESPONSE TO CEDED COMMENTS 00 mENGINEERING INC. JOB NO. 72K42 w, e�rOMTN rw em,n DATE OK/OB/20/2 H W Y 6 ROAD PLAN Sc PROFILES NNVW LLPINEGNIL.COM IXEMNPSAD..a9t...P..2011Mws COOTW90w.e.11 2PLIP02eus9w.Nt NMI ,- .1 ) I J f o =o r'1 - 13// __________li 17 IiiiimiP-:;- : , -- i L.,,,,,_,/ w V. iy r I g 2. 1 , .>0 1= w + . / �5— i '// , I rI ___i • •, N: � .. / j t, F C•' I. ;t__ i Z uli"g it_ ° , b /jill i ,/.,',,..-r' o W 4 si ° ' j o II���, I I i�I 1, , . . ° 1 .\ E5 4 R4/ � , 1.4\It ,„ i . fili ''- ._NIL, , ''':\:„'.,: .':,,,,,‘,,,,...,:,,,,,, s --: i ° LIHN**,---1-'—': •-cs-- .,,;.:::':\ ' JI) 4(' t° �\�'\�\` � e 3 \ le 99i11 )t i.1 I ;/' i' I A t I • '' . .)' : .).-:4; ! % PI 0 I t'1111 ID Ko "If .i, 1 /-#. . , -,‘ /// ihi 1 MATCHLINEyy v�� .. y/. //jf// a 14/lIRRR 111 s t , DESIGNED Q EDWARDS RIVER PARK B.RIG NO. DA,E REW IMINAONS eY D.D./o,9 RRE MINM"RUN ALPINE KW DRAWN RIG 2 0,/21n0,9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS E' O X D 10nv2019 RESPONSE To RESEW COMMENTS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO N m CNECWEO MCW 1 02/12/2020 RESPONSE To REVIEW COMMENTS t0 - ENGINEERING INC. JOB No. 2Du2 wwuDA,E D1,D9nD,9 HOMY 6 SI GN AGE BC STRIPING wIENCPCILOM W.AMADANNIN RM.,PAW P 20121.223COOT 9Mu2MJq?nym222.m92PMIM / E 1 i 1 t t ! _ :: : a t 1 i ti /`//. i I 8 I MATCNLINE All -----.... z 7 /;/: // .-,._ °141 i , { ; 1' Ir q' ra i 11ri i F. ii 0 t g 1 . a x tl A I 1 kp p r-�yl� l' ii 1 t OS rc zm Y. 1 \' ^gym �� illt -fit= �.,�. \ t ❑� k. „ ..:111 .fit t s 1\ E N; !! f i t nA Li t 59rncccN W ! t 1 7 Y g lail it / 1 i y4 1 ; A / a 1 1 t / _ — t t P t ,_ t /1ii 1 pa ; 1 N /11 / ® GI Io 1 Y / p g t t'1 f 1 IWS I+l ; It t 1 / 1 jiY Ym_�, i tqymym❑m of ® I '� 1 1m, I t1 ;1ppQYL'A'I / i 1 A 1 41 1 t tl /:F 1 V I / t 1 V ❑5 5 I R1 Y s I t 1 41 / I t Ii 1 / Y 1 I 1 / ❑g.S I 1 / t 1 I 1 I / iDAY �� i/ 1 / 1 1 1 I / 1 mEl � $z iA�4 :a 1 ! g SSYY[[ 1 t / I I DESIGNED MCW.CLB RIP ND. DA,E RpER S B. EDWARDS RIVER PARK ALPINE i 04/OS/2019 PREL4NMV PIAN n III DRAWN RIP 2 02/24/2012 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS �' N= 2 1O/21/2012 RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO /rl CNECNED MCW 4 02/12/2020 RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS O ENGINEERING INC. JOB N0. JDH2 DATE DA/012/2012 HWY 6 SIGNAGE BC STRIPING WWWALLPINECNILCOIA D 1f 1 !$ . ills , h i Chian2v a v z EMI" � _ 34 a� ■ice g & 14- -0 ,� iY I A Il • Ala I 9 v, I 1 0 1= m a y O 9 � oq8 cn a - g 11 Z 1 M 11 q : >• 1 ii .. _ .. II 1 , > 1,. 1 „ .. , --, : �F1�1� F D p j I-'I ft "4'N'A i; 2 1 ! i I/ 1 1 iig t 1 I Z P 1i m O A ." iF anon o -f IN 9 . F. m lO 44 e ~ T ' 1: Pill ll q I. i, it m a,_. - 1 g .4 e s igh 111,1 111 in 1ffI i[1111IS I rt iji1 W i6 g1 {1 1 3q p 1I i�g •1 ell 1 i i1 SA i6 $ �" no @ 1 alai 1AS 81 p M i 1 _ i %ii °l• s110 —14 i y m 111 1 DENONE°''CE.Rw N1' ..,E REM40N5 .. EDWARDS RIVER PARK ALPINE 1 07/21/201.RESPONSE T PION N DRAWN Rif 2 10/2♦/20t.RESPONSE TO COMMENTS n x a 02/1/202 RESPONSE TO RENEW COMMENTS EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO .. m aECNEo KS-- ♦ oz/t2/zozo RESPONSE To RENEW COMMENTS ENGINEERING INC. .be No. TOuz MM./•u♦R....nv In DOTE 04/05/2019 HWY 6 ROADWAY DETAILS ...LPINECMLCOM